GAHC010048832018 2025:GAU-AS:9152 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1517/2018 ASHWIN KR. MAHANTA S/O. LT. SUBAL CH. MAHANTA, R/O. FLAT NO.2(C), HOUSE NO. -3, USHA PRAFULLA MANSION APARTMENT, DINESH OJHA PATH, BHANGAGARH, P.S. BHANGAGARH, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE ASSAM STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN AND 2 ORS.

REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON BELTOLA, NEAR SHANKARDEV NETRALAYA, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

2:THE LEGAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REP. BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE ASSAM STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN BELTOLA NEAR SHANDARDEV NETRALAYA GUWAHATI ASSAM

3:SMT. SABITA DAS W/O. LT. NIRMAL CH. DAS R/O. FLAT NO.4(C)

HOUSE NO.-3 USHA AND PRAFULLA MANSION APARTMENT DINESH OJHA PATH BHANGAGARH P.S. BHANGAGARH DIST. KAMRUP (M)

ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P BORTHAKUR, MR H J TAMULI,MR M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR A K SINGHA (R3), MR. B DEKA (R3)

B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Shri P.P. Borthakur, Advocate.

Advocates for respondents : Shri H. Sarma, GA-Assam, Shri S. Gautam, Advocate, R-3.

Date of hearing : 15.07.2025 Date of judgment : 15.07.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER Heard Shri P.P. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the official respondents and Shri S. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is against an order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Assam State Commission for Women in ASCW Case No.202/2017. By the said order, the learned Commission has directed the petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises within 30.04.2018.

3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent 3. The said respondent no. 3 had however filed a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 - Commission. The said Commission, vide the impugned order dated 18.11.2017 had directed the petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises within 30.04.2018.

4. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid direction is absolutely without any jurisdiction as no such powers are vested in the Commission. He has submitted that the petitioner is protected under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1971, more specifically, Section 5 thereof and if at all, an action for ejectment is required, the appropriate forum is required to be approached.

5. Shri Sarma, learned State Counsel has fairly submitted that the impugned direction appears to be in excess of jurisdiction. He however submits that he would not make any comments on the inter se merits of the allegations made against the petitioner by the respondent no. 3, which is required to be proved in accordance with the law.

6. Shri Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has informed that in the meantime, the respondent no. 3 has in fact filed a title suit for ejectment being T.S. Case No. 222/2018 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div. – 1), Kamrup (M), which is pending.

7. The submissions advanced on behalf of the parties have been duly considered.

8. This Court has noted that while issuing notice vide order dated 19.03.2018, this Court has directed that until further orders, the impugned order shall remain suspended.

9. The powers to be exercised by respondent no. 1 - Commission have to be within the prescription of law as laid down in the relevant statute, namely, the Assam State Commission for Women Act, 1994. The preamble of the said Act reads as follows:

“Whereas it is expedient to provide the constitution of a Commission for furthering the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India with respect to women and to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy and in particular those enshrined in Articles 38, 39, 39A and 42 of the Constitution to improve the status and dignity of women in the society, to investigate into and take