2024 Supreme(All) 1800
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JJ.
Anil Kumar Khanna - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. - 8810 OF 2023.
Decided On : 19-01-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mayank Pandey.
For the Respondent: G.A.,Neerav Chitravanshi,Rana Pratap Singh, Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Shiv P Shukla.
The court emphasized the necessity of due process in eviction proceedings and the accountability of police in cases of forcible dispossession.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Sections 21, 14 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections related to FIR registration - Writ petition filed for restoration of possession and monitoring of investigation into forcible dispossession of tenant from shop premises. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 8)
(B) Mandamus - The court emphasized the necessity of due process in eviction proceedings and the importance of restoring possession to the tenant who was forcibly dispossessed without legal authority. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Police Accountability - The court directed an inquiry into police involvement in facilitating illegal dispossession and emphasized the need for accountability of law enforcement in such matters. (Paras 12, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a long-term tenant, was forcibly evicted from his shop by private respondents with alleged police collusion, despite pending eviction proceedings. The petitioner sought restoration of possession and monitoring of the investigation into the incident.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the impleadment of additional parties and directed an inquiry into the alleged police collusion in the forcible dispossession.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the eviction process and the role of police in the alleged illegal actions against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the eviction process must adhere to legal standards and that any forcible dispossession without due process is unlawful, necessitating restoration of possession.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed further inquiries and actions to ensure compliance with legal standards.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Shri Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate, father of the opposite party no. 10, Saurabh Singh is present. He has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 10.
3. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 8810 of 2023 has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding and directing there by the opposite party no. 1 to 5 to restore the possession of the petitioner over the Shop No. 2 situated on the ground floor of House No. 173/60 Dr. B. N. Verma Road Police Station - Kalsherbag District - Lucknow because the petitioner has been forcefully and without any authority of law or without adopting due procedure of law ousted from the said shop by the opposite party no.8 to 11 with the help of opposite party no.6 and 7.
B. Issue a Writ, order, or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties no.4 to monitor the Investigation of Case Crime No. 124/2023 Under Section 427, 447 and 506 I.P.C in the police station - Kalsherabgh Lucknow and also insure to that the investigation of the said F.I.R to be conduct in free and faire manner after looking all allegations made in the F.I.R."
4. On 17.11.2023, the following order was passed:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State-respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially states that there is a typographical error in the description of opposite party nos.4 and 5. Instead of Kaiserbagh it has wrongly been typed as Krishna Nagar. He prays that he may be allowed to correct the said description during the course of the day. The prayer so made is allowed. Necessary corrections be carried out in the description of opposite party nos.4 and 5 by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day itself.
3. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
"A. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding and directing there by the opposite party no. 1 to 5 to restore the possession of the petitioner over the Shop No. 2 situated on the ground floor of House No. 173/60 Dr. B. N. Verma Road Police Station - Kalsherbag District - Lucknow because the petitioner has been forcefully and without any authority of law or without adopting due procedure of law ousted from the said shop by the opposite party no.8 to 11 with the help of opposite party no.6 and 7.
B. Issue a Writ, order, or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties no.4 to monitor the Investigation of Case Crime No. 124/2023 Under Section 427, 447 and 506 I.P.C in the police station - Kalsherabgh Lucknow and also insure to that the investigation of the said F.I.R to be conduct in free and faire manner after looking all allegations made in the F.I.R."
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party nos.6 and 7, who are the Station House Officer and Sub Inspector beat in charge, respectively of police station Kaiserbagh, Lucknow have colluded with the opposite party nos.8 to 11, who are the private respondents and taken over the property/ shop of the petitioner situated on the ground floor of House No. 173/60, Dr. B.N. Verma Road, police station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow. The petitioner was tenant of the Shop No.2 situated on the ground floor of the said house for the last 55 years and running a shop by the name of 'Kumar Electronics'. The opposite party no.8 is the land lady of the said house and opposite party no.9 is her son. On 19.09.2022, opposite party no.8 filed a case under Section 21 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 before the Additional District Magistrate City (East), Lucknow against the petitioner praying for his eviction from the property in question, on the ground that petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent for the past two years. The petitioner appeared before the Additional District Magistrate
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
