A tenant cannot be dispossessed without due process of law.

( 1 ) THE writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents 2,3 and 4 to help the respondents 5 to 8 to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the shop in dispute. It has also been prayed that the respondent no. 1 be directed to open the lock placed on the shop of the petitioner and to ensure that the injunction order dated 4. 7. 2001 in suit no. 308 of 2001 is complied with.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has alleged that he was a tenant of a shop called bhaiyaji general Store in Gautam Buddha Nagar. It is alleged that this shop was owned jointly by respondent 5,6,7 and 8 who entered into a family settlement whereby the respondent no. 6 became the sole owner of the said shop and a room which is situated on its western side. The petitioner purchased this shop from the respondent no. 6 vide sale deed executed on 18. 4. 2001 by the respondent no. 6 in favour of the petitioner. True copy of the sale deed is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

( 3 ) IN paragraph 11 of the writ petition it is stated that on 17. 6. 2001 the respondent no. 5 and 7 sent hooligans (gundas) and anti social elements to vacate the shop and hence the petitioner submitted a complaint before the S. H. O. Dadri, Gautam Buddha Nagar but nothing was done. True copy of the complaint dated 23. 6. 2001 is Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) IN paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is alleged that the respondent no. 5 and 6 forcibly locked the shop of the petitioner on 10. 7. 2001 with the help of s. H. O. , respondent no. 4 although the petitioner had obtained an injunction order dated 4. 7. 2001 in civil suit no. 308 of 2001 vide Annexure 9 to the writ petition. Thus the respondents deliberately flouted the injunction order dated 4. 7. 2001 passed by the Civil Judge, senior Division, Gautam Buddha Nagar by forcibly locking the shop of the petitioner with the help of respondent no. 4. It is alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the respondent no. 4 had indulged in corrupt practices and threatened him making demands. The order dated 4. 7. 2001 directs the parties to maintain status quo.

( 5 ) IT is stated in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that the petitioner had supplied copy of the injunction order dated 4. 7. 2001 to respondents 5, 7 and 8 but they refused to take the copy. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the District Magistrate on 10. 10. 2001 but to no avail. True copy of the representation is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner also gave a copy of the injunction order dated 4. 7. 2001 to the S. S. P. and S. D. M. , Gautam Buddha nagar but no action was taken. The petitioner had filed writ petition no. 14356 of 2002 in this Court and this Court by order dated 16. 4. 2002 had directed the concerned authority to decide his representation within a month. It was not decided. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition it is alleged that the respondents 5,7 and 8 had caused substantial damage to the shop. The petitioner had also filed contempt proceedings against the respondents. The petitioner has also moved the National Human Rights commission alleging that he has been tortured by the Police.

( 6 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 7 on behalf of the respondent no. 5. In paragraph 3 of the same it is stated that after 6. 3. 2001 the petitioner was not a tenant in the house in question. The shop in question was given on rent on 24. 8. 1998 by the respondent no. 5 to the petitioner under a written rent deed for one year from 24. 8. 1998 to 23. 8. 1999 and thereafter it was given on rent to the petitioner from 6. 3. 2000 to 5. 3. 2001 but thereafter the petitioner was no more the tenant of the house in question. In paragraph 4 it is denied that the respondents 5 and 7 have made any agreement or sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent no. 6 and 8 are in collusion with the petitioner. The sale d