2014 (4) TMI 1280 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking unsealing and releasing of the premises - Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - HELD THAT - It is the settled position of law that a lawful tenant cannot be evicted from the tenanted premises without following the due process of law as enumerated in the Rent Act prevailing at the relevant time. Thus, we find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants. If the premises are directly handed over to Respondent No.2 in the present Appeals preferred by the Appellants, then it would certainly amount to dispossessing the Appellants / tenants without following the due process of law. The impugned order in the present Appeals was passed on 19 March 2004. The investigation pertaining to the aforesaid MECR No.1 of 2003 has been completed on 23 November 2004 and after its completion a charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Court and it is now culminated in MPID Special Case No.34 of 2004. The investigating agency by its report dated 26 February 2014 has clearly mentioned that the Appellants have no role to play in the said crime bearing MECR No.1 of 2003 and the Appellants had given the premises Nos.502 and 501 respectively to the original accused viz. Roofit Industries Limited and its directors purely on ex-gratis basis. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 against the order dismissing Criminal Applications for unsealing premises.
2. Questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 19 March 2004.
3. Tenancy dispute arising from the sealing of premises during investigation.
4. Rejection of previous applications for releasing/unsealing premises.
5. Investigation revealing appellants' lack of involvement in the crime.
6. Legal rights of lawful tenants in possession of the premises.
7. Quashing and setting aside the impugned order for unsealing and releasing the premises.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 against the order dismissing Criminal Applications for unsealing premises occupied by the appellants. The trial court had rejected previous applications for releasing the premises, citing ongoing investigation and lack of evidence of the appellants' physical possession. However, subsequent investigation revealed that the appellants had no role in the crime and had provided the premises to the accused on an ex-gratis basis. The High Court acknowledged the legal rights of lawful tenants and held that direct possession handover to another party would violate due process. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19 March 2004 was quashed and set aside.

The High Court emphasized the completion of the investigation and the filing of the chargesheet, which clarified the appellants' lack of involvement in the crime. Considering these developments, the court directed the investigating agency to unseal and release the premises to the appellants within seven days. This decision was based on the principle that lawful tenants cannot be evicted without following due process as per the relevant Rent Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of protecting the legal rights of tenants and ensuring proper procedures are followed in cases involving tenancy disputes during criminal investigations.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed both appeals, quashed the impugned order dated 19 March 2004, and directed the investigating agency to hand over possession of the premises to the appellants. This decision aimed to uphold the rights of lawful tenants and ensure compliance with legal procedures in resolving the dispute over the sealed premises.