The Khadi & Village Industries Commission is incorporated under the Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (Act 61 of 1956). The Director of the Commission at Dimapur and the Commission both are petitioners in this writ petition. The Commission is located in a private premises at Duncan Road of Dimapur town in Nagaland. The premises is owned by Bina Agarwalla. She let out the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 1093/- on January 1, 1977. The demised premises consists of a room in the front where there is a showroom of the Commission, another room in the rear used as store room. On June 17, 1987 the tenant was informed the lease period expired therefore was asked to hand over vacant possession before December 31, 1987. The tenant was warned in a letter if over stayed the period prescribed in that case Rs. 4,000/-per month will have to be paid for use and occupation of the premises. The tenant requested extension of lease period for two years. The request was promptly refused on July 24, 1987. A lawyer's notice on February 17, 1988 was served on the tenant demanding vacant possession before February 20, 1988 in that Rs. 200.00 per day was claimed towards damages. Again on April 6, 1988 time was extended upto April 30, 1988 for vacating the premises if only payment of Rs. 4000.00 from January, 1988 is paid. Yet by another letter on May 2, 1988 the tenant was asked to hand over the possession by May 9, 1988.

Vexed by the letters and threats the Commission approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland for protection when the lessor threatened to demolish the premises. The Commission also approached the Superintendent of Police. Dimapur for help. The Police Station house officer at Dimapur helped the tenant from being thrown out. On June 1, 1988 the land lady with her spouse was at the threshold of the premises to dismantle the eastern wall. On June 2, 1988 the tenant was informed to vacate the premises within seven days. On June 10, 1988 otherwise the premises is to be demolished. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur at the instance of the lessor ordered the tenant to ensure removal of the goods of the tenant in seven day.

Exasperated by the threats the tenant approached this Court on June 9, 1988 under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated June 2, 1988. In the writ petition tenant avers to be in lawful occupation of the premises therefore cannot be unlawfully evicted. It is urged no tenant cannot dismantle a portion of the tenanted house. The order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur is assailed as an order without authority, without jurisdiction, and illegal. Pending the writ petition the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur on June 17, 1988 heard the counsel for the lessor and tenant further ordered-"The portion of the wall which has been broken by Mrs. Agarwalla on 10. 6. 88 be closed up in order to make the premises secure from theft, burglary etc, pending the final disposal of the case. Repair of the broken wall is ordered as the wall was broken on 10. 6. 88 where as the same day an order was issued restraining Mrs. Bina Agarwalla to carry out any repairs etc, as per the direction of the High Court. Let notice issue to Mrs. Bina Agarwalla to repair the wall broken on 10. 6. 88 at her expense in order to keep the premises secure within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of service of the order.”

In opposition to the writ petition the lessor asserts the is the owner of the building and she leased out the premises for ten years on January 1, 1977. The period of lease expired. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement she gave notice of six months before the lease period expired. She is in need of the building for her personal use therefore gave notice on December 31, 1987 and the tenant did not vacate the premises. She referred to her letters which we are adverted earlier in opposition of the writ peti