Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 613 (GAU)

Ashok Subba v. State of Meghalaya

2008-08-20

H.BARUAH

body2008
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.R. Sen, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned senior Government advocate for the State respondent. None appears for the private respondents. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th July, 2005 passed in MCA No. 8(T) of 2004 by Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong by which the parties to the proceeding are directed to maintain status quo. 3. The brief facts leading to this impugned order may be summarized as below: The petitioner is a tenant under respondent No. 2 in respect of the premises situated at Limbu Compound, Mawbah, Barapathar, Shillong at a monthly rental of Rs. 400 since 1992. A sum of Rs. 18,000 was paid in advance to the respondent No. 2 with condition of adjustment of the same towards the rent at the rate of Rs. 300 per month and remaining Rs. 100 of the total rental agreed, would be paid by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petitioner invested an amount of Rs. 40,000 with the consent of the respondent No. 2, the landlord for renovation of the rented house. During the subsistence of the relationship as landlord and tenant between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, Ms. Rashmi Subba, daughter of the writ petitioner without the knowledge of the writ petitioner eloped with the nephew of the respondent No. 3 and got married which caused disappointment to the family members of the respondents. The respondent No. 2 insisted the petitioner to separate his daughter from her newly married husband, the nephew of the respondent No. 3, failing which the respondent's family threatened the petitioner of evicting from the premises. The writ petitioner failed to oblige their unlawful demand for which the respondent No. 2 threatened the writ petitioner of forceful eviction from the rented house and in fact on 8th June 2004 and 7th August, 2004 asked the petitioner to vacate the rented house. 4. The apprehending forceful illegal eviction from the premises taken on rent, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration being Title Suit No. 29(T) of 2004 in the court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC praying for ad interim injunction. 4. The apprehending forceful illegal eviction from the premises taken on rent, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration being Title Suit No. 29(T) of 2004 in the court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC praying for ad interim injunction. The court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner accordingly vide order dated 19th August, 2004 passed an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from forceful evicting the petitioner from the suit premises until disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 19.8.2004 in the court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong being No. MCA 8(T) of 2004. Vide order dated 9.8.2005 the matter was fixed for hearing fixing on 21st July, 2005. On the date fixed the court without hearing the Counsel of the petitioner passed an interim stay of the order dated 19.8.2004 and fixed the appeal for hearing on 31.8.2005. 5. Taking advantage of the stay granted vide order dated 21st July, 2005, on 22nd July, 2005 all the belongings of the writ petitioner were thrown out of the rented house by the respondents. The petitioner finding no other alternative approached the appellate court again on 25th July, 2005 by filing a petition seeking restoration of the suit premises pending disposal of the appeal but the court vide order dated 25th July, 2005 directed the parties to maintain status quo and fixed 31.8.2005 for ex parte hearing. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved thereby sought refuge before this Court by this present writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.7.2005 and this Court vide order dated 1.8.2005 restored the premises to the writ petitioner and directed not to interfere with possession of the petitioner as tenant in the suit premises without following due process of law. 7. Mr. S.R. Sen, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner while supporting the writ petition has contended that the order dated 25th July, 2005 was passed illegally without going into the merit of the petition so made. 7. Mr. S.R. Sen, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner while supporting the writ petition has contended that the order dated 25th July, 2005 was passed illegally without going into the merit of the petition so made. The object of filing the petition on 25.7.2005 was to obtain an appropriate order for restoration of possession of the rented house to the petitioner in view of his illegal outstar therefrom but the learned trial court failed to gauge the gravity of the situation prevailed during the relevant point of time and instead directed the parties to maintain status quo which was detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. It is further alleged by Mr. S.R. Sen, Learned Senior Counsel that the appellate court most mechanically and arbitrarily passed the order which called for interference from this Court in exercise of power of Superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. From the narration of the facts, it is noticed that the demand of separation of Ms. Rashmi Subba, daughter of the petitioner from the nephew of the respondent No. 3 was an unlawful demand since both of them entered into a marriage tie. His (writ petitioner) failure to satisfy their unreasonable demand, resulted the forceful eviction of the writ petitioner from the suit premises on 22nd June, 2005 and while evicting, the respondents threw out all their belongings from the rented house which prompted the writ petitioner to file an application before the appellate court on 25th July, 2005. The appellate court as it appears failed to read/consider the gravity of the situation and without passing an appropriate order on the date adjourned the matter to 31.8.2005, directing the parties to maintain status quo. By this order the writ petitioner was unable to get immediate relief for which the application was made. As a result of forceful eviction, all his belongings were, in the out side of the rented house and the writ petitioner along with his family members had to take resort in a hotel. It is apparent from the records that the writ petitioner was forcefully and illegally thrown out from the suit premises without following the due procedure of law when the injunction was in force. It is apparent from the records that the writ petitioner was forcefully and illegally thrown out from the suit premises without following the due procedure of law when the injunction was in force. The illegal action resorted to by the respondent ought to have been taken care of by the learned appellate court on the date when the application was filed seeking immediate relief in view of illegal outstar and throwing out of all the household belongings from the rented house, but the learned appellate court without going into the merit of the petition passed an order adjourning the matter to a future date directing the parties to maintain status quo, which, however-, failed to give intended relief to the writ petitioner. 9. Having considered all the matters in its entirety, this Court is of an opinion that the impugned order passed by the court was made without applying its mind into the facts situation and relief sought for rather passed the same mechanically without taking into consideration of the attending circumstances prevailing at that time. The impugned order appears to have been passed illegally, mechanically and arbitrarily which legally cannot sustain. The impugned order dated 25.7.2005 is accordingly set aside and quashed. 10. Since, this Court vide order dated 1.8.2005 restored the possession of the suit premises to the writ petitioner, this Court does not propose to pass order in respect of restoration of suit premises. It is further directed that respondents shall not make any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the writ petitioner in the suit premises. In respect of relief of compensation, this Court declines to pass any order. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach appropriate forum, if so advised for such relief. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of. However, with no cost. Petition disposed of.