IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the SEM to form an independent opinion based on a preliminary enquiry before issuing a notice under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in landlord-tenant disputes, and the need for the SEM to state reasons for taking such action at every stage.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of notice under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C. and Kalandra dated 24.04.2022.

2. The chronology of dates and events to the extent necessary and relevant and as emerging from the narrative in the petition is that father of the Petitioner namely, Sh. Rakesh Kumar is the owner of Flat bearing No. 402, Block-D, Sector-29, Fourth Floor, Rohini, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Premises"), right and title to which flows from the Conveyance Deed executed on 22.02.2013 between Petitioner's father and husband of Respondent No. 2 herein. It is averred that Sh. Anil Kumar, the husband of Respondent No. 2 works as a TTE, with the Indian Railways and had approached Petitioner's father in October, 2018 to take the flat on rent for residential purposes. It was portrayed by Respondent No. 2 and her husband that they require the premises for their self-use and will be taking care of the flat in the best possible manner.

3. It is further stated that believing the words of Respondent No. 2 and her husband, Petitioner's father agreed to rent out the flat for a period of 22 months commencing from 15.09.2018 and a Rent Agreement was executed on 20.10.2018 between Respondent No. 2's husband and father of the Petitioner and subject premises was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/-for 11 months and at a rent of Rs. 16,500/- for the next 11 months. Rs. 30,000/- was agreed to be deposited as security by the tenant.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 15.07.2020, the tenancy came to an end and despite repeated requests by the Petitioner, the subject premises was not vacated by the tenants and therefore, their status was of unauthorized occupants post 15.07.2020. In February, 2022, husband of Respondent No. 2 informed that he had been allotted a flat in Sonipat but despite this they did not vacate the tenanted premises. On 24.04.2022, Petitioner's father went to inspect the subject premises and found that a stranger was occupying the said premises and it was clear that the tenanted premises had been sub-let. Immediately, Police was called to ascertain the status of the person occupying the premises. Later in the evening, a statement was made by Respondent No. 2 and her husband before the Police that the third person was their servant and accordingly, the complaint was closed. Again on 16.08.2022, when the Petitioner and his father went to the subject premises, they found a fourth person residing therein and on contacting Respondent No. 2's husband, there was no response.

5. Instead of vacating the subject premises, to the utter surprise of the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 and her husband made a complaint against the Petitioner that he was threatening them with dire consequences and pursuant thereto, Petitioner received a notice on 02.08.2022 via WhatsApp under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C. for appearing before the Special Executive Magistrate ('SEM'). Copy of the Kalandra was not supplied to the Petitioner despite filing an RTI application. It is this notice and the Kalandra, which are subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

6. Contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner are that the impugned notice is illegal as the alleged incident or threatening never took place and a false complaint was made by Respondent No. 2 and her husband only to illegally occupy the subject premises and escape from the liability of paying the damage rent. Perusal of the notice shows that it is a pre-printed format and only the name, date and certain other particulars relating to the present case have been filled up. Section 107(1) Cr.P.C. requires some kind of an enquiry by the SEM before the notice is issued which has apparently not happened in the present case. The SEM has failed to adhere to the mandatory precautions and safeguards required for exercising power under Section