By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of two revision petitions registered as Criminal Revision Nos. 331/88. and No. 335/88. Facts are as follows :-

Jajneswar Mahanta, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 335/88 is the landlord of the room in dispute and Abinash Mahanta, opposite party in the above Criminal Revision is his monthly tenant and he is ruining restaurant business. The tenant failed to pay rent from 1.7.86 and a lawyer's notice was served on the tenant. The landlord filed a petition before the learned Additional District Magist­rate, Giuhati in October, 1987 alleging inter alia, that the tenant failed to pay the rent, closed the said restaurant for 2 months keeping the room under lock an 1 key and left the place without any intimation to the landlord. Other allegations were made in the said petition regarding the conduct of the tenant and keeping all furniture, fixtures and utensils in the said room. On the basis of the said petition on 2.11.87, the learned Addl. District Magistrate passed an order observing, inter alia, as follows:

"The said room was kept under lock and key since the 2 months back by the tenant without any informing the owner also have not paid the monthly rent to the house owner of the room resulting financial hardship to the owner. However, there is every possible of damages of the Room if there is kept under lock and key indefinitely as where about of the said tenant is also not known."

Further the learned Additional District Magistrate directed the Officer-in Charge, Noonmati P. S. to open the room, prepare an inventory of goods if any in the said room in presence of an Executive Magistrate and also directed to keep the goods in zimma of a 3rd party and to be handed over if claimed by the owner. The order were duly complied with. Thereafter, the tenant approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Judge by judgment and order dated 30.6.88 set aside the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate and directed to restore possession of the house to the tenant which was also duly executed by police. As the learned Sessions Judge stayed his order, the learned Additional District Magistrate passed an order for maintenance of status-quo and further directed that 'room should not be handed over to either of the parties'. The police reported that as possession has been handed over to the tenant the order could not be executed. Thereafter, on 26.7.88 the learned Additional District Magistrate asked the Officer-in-Charge, Noonmati P. S. to carry out his order in presence of an Executive Magistrate and further directed the said Officer-in-Charge to prepare the list of articles found in the room and to keep the same in zimma of a 3rd party for safe custody. Against the aforesaid order the tenant has approached this Court by filing the aforesaid revision 331/88. There is no dispute at the Bar that the above orders were passed under the provisions of Police Act, 1861, hereinafter for short 'the Act'. The landlord has filed Criminal Rev. 335/88 challenging the revisional order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

3. I have stated the facts fully in order to show how an Executive Magistrate by exercising power under Police Act can evict a tenant from a house. This Court has come across such eviction by Magistracy by exercising powers under section 144 Cr. P. C. But this is the first time this Court has come across such eviction by resorting to the provisions of Police Act. There cannot be any dispute for the reasons which I shall presently state that exercise of powers is beyond jurisdiction and has to be set aside by invoking the inherent powers of this Court as in my opinion this is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court by a landlord.

4. Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Police Act, 1861, which are relevant for the present purpose are reproduced below :

"25. Police officers to take charge of unclaimed property, and be subject to Magistrate's order as to disposal.-It s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document