Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 214 (CAL)

Kajal Kumar Saha v. Sourav Mitra

2012-03-15

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2012
Judgment Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. THIS application is at the instance of the landlords of the premises and is directed against the order dated August 7, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in G.R. Case No.671 of 2009 under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to deliver vacant possession of a certain premises. 2. THE petitioners have claimed that they are the owners of the premises in question at BB-84, Salt Lake City, Sector-I, Kolkata- 700064 and the accused persons of the G.R. Case No.671 of 2009 2 were the tenants of the said premises. A criminal case under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC was lodged against the tenants and the police, during the investigation, kept the said premises under lock and key as the tenants/accused persons had already vacated the premises. Now, the landlords have prayed for recovery of possession of the premises in question. That application of the landlords was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State, it appears that while disposing of the application for getting back the possession of the premises in question, the learned Trial judge has simply recorded that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted before him that the matter of the same nature was pending before the Hon’ble Court and as such, he was not in a position to determine the merit of the application in that stage and so the application was rejected. But the order impugned does not indicate anything that any specific case is pending over the selfsame matter. It is also the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides that such an application to the selfsame effect is not pending before this Hon’ble Court, save and except, the present one. The order impugned is not explicit, but the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the prayer without being 3 convinced that any such application over the selfsame fact is pending before this Hon’ble Court or not. 3. THE impugned order cannot sustain and it needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed. THE impugned order is hereby set aside. 3. THE impugned order cannot sustain and it needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed. THE impugned order is hereby set aside. THE learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the said application afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order to him. 4. CONSIDERING the circumstance, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for the parties on their usual undertaking.