The court ruled that eviction orders should be reconsidered after trial to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, emphasizing the need for clarity on property ownership.

JUDGEMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) for quashing the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nazira, Sivsagar (hereinafter the Magistrate, for short) whereby the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner Smt. Rumi Bora (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act of 2013 for short). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the subsequent orders passed after 15.02.2023 in connection with the same case i.e. CR Case No. 07/2023.

2. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in the aforementioned case, allowing the interim prayer of the complainant/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the complaint) under Section 452 (2) of the Act of 2013 directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter allotted to her husband incidental to his service.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate inter-alia alleging that the petitioner was the wife of the erstwhile employee Dino Nath Bora. He was working as B Grade staff in the Tea Garden since 01.06.1980 and he retired from service on 01.09.2011. Incidental to his service, the employee Dino Nath Bora during his lifetime was allotted a house at Suntok Tea Estate but after retirement, the employee had to vacate his house. The petitioner along with the inmates disagreed to vacate the company’s quarter allotted to her husband even after retirement of her husband.

4. Vide the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 cognizance was taken and summonses were issued against the petitioner who appeared before the Trial Court. On her appearance, offences were explained under Section 452 of the Act of 2013 and the case was fixed for evidence. Meanwhile, an interim application was filed by the complainant under Section 452 (2) of the Act of 2013 and vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, the interim application filed by the complainant was allowed and the petitioner was directed to vacate her residential house.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she is in no way connected with this case.

6. Petitioner’s case is that she is an 80 years old ailing lady who is suffering from dementia and she is living with her two sons and her daughters-in-law in the Village: Suntok, Sub-Division: Nazira, Mouza: Dhupator, under Nazira Circle, in the district of Sivsagar.

7. Apart from her present residence, the petitioner has no other accommodation.

8. It is contended by the petitioner that her father-in-law namely Late Tarani Kanta Bora was the Godown In-Charge of Suntok Tea Estate under the Assam Company during British period. Late Tarani Kanta Bora during his lifetime used to reside in his house situated at Village : Nagaon, Sub-Division : Nazira, Mouza : Dhupator, Under Nazira Circle, in Sivsagar district, appertaining to Dag No. 784, Government Patta land which was a ceiling surplus plot of land.

9. It is further submitted that after death of Tarani Kanta Bora, his son Dina Nath Bora i.e. the petitioner’s husband was appointed as House Head in Suntak Tea Estate on 12.12.1972 and he was attending his duties in the Tea Estate from his father’s house as described above.His father’s house was standing over a plot of land at Village : Nagaon Patta No. TP-1 Government land, under Dag No. 739.

10. The petitioner’s husband finally retired on superannuation from service on 01.09.2011 from Suntak Tea Estate, which was under the name and style of General Fiber Dealer’s Pvt. Ltd. at that relevant point of time. On 05.04.2018, petitioner’s husband passed away leaving behind the petitioner and her two sons.

11. It is further submitted that on 29.10.1995 the aforementioned plot of land where the petitioner was residing with her family members was allotted in the name of petitioner’s husband Dino Nath Bora by the Government as