Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 247 (KER)

Somanathan v. Sub Divisional Magistrate

2017-02-02

SUNIL THOMAS

body2017
ORDER Sunil Thomas, J. 1. The petitioner herein claims to be a tenant of a building No.MP XV/745 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner claims that, as a tenant he is running a business in that room since 1991 with valid licence. Section 133 Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent in relation to the buildings including the building under the occupation of the petitioner herein. A preliminary order was passed evidenced by Annexure A2. 2. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, the 1st respondent is proceeding with 133 Cr.P.C. proceedings without serving notice on him and without he being heard. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, he being the person in possession of the disputed building is entitled to be heard. Notice was served on the respondents 2 and 5. 3. Crl.M.A. 10962/2016 has been filed to delete respondents 3, 4 and 6 from party array. They are stated to be the other tenants who are also party to the proceedings. Hence, the above application is allowed and they are deleted from the party array. R7 is also reported to be another tenant against whom no relief is sought. Hence, the notice to R7 is dispensed with. 4. It appears that the petitioner herein had filed Annexure A3 application before the 1st respondent requesting that he may also be heard and may be granted time to file objections to the preliminary order. His apprehension is that since he is not made a party to the proceedings, he will not be heard, thereby disentitling him a valuable right of defence, which ultimately may affect his source of livelihood. Section 133 Cr.P.C. provides that the person in possession is also one among the person against whom an order can be passed. Necessarily he is entitled to a notice of proceeding and of being heard. 5. In the above circumstance, I find no reason as to why the 1st respondent will not give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein to place all his arguments if he is able to convince the 1st respondent that he is the person in possession as a tenant of the building, which is the subject matter of 133 Cr.P.C. proceedings. In the above circumstance, I find no reason as to why the 1st respondent will not give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein to place all his arguments if he is able to convince the 1st respondent that he is the person in possession as a tenant of the building, which is the subject matter of 133 Cr.P.C. proceedings. Hence, Crl.M.C. is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to give an opportunity of filing objections and hearing, if the petitioner herein is able to establish that he is the tenant of a building which is the subject matter of the 133 Cr.P.C. proceedings.