9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from his flat, In other words, the landlord was able to get back possession of tenanted premises without having to go through the usual landlord and tenant proceedings before appropriate forum in accordance with law. It appears that after instituting proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, the landlord moved the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction. Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. on 13th August, 1993 passed an order directing the Officer in Charge, Muchipara Police Station, to make an enquiry into the complaint dated 26th July, 1993 and submit a report on 19th August, 1993. This was an exparte order without any notice to the tenant. On 30th Augusts 1993 the writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of affidavits even to the State, There is no explanation why the proceedings were not allowed to be continued in the Court of the Executive Magistrate in accordance with law. It was most unfortunate that the Court intervened in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was actually being heard and a drastic order of this nature was passed by the court in such a manner without issuing a Rule Nisi and without any proper hearing. A procedure unknown to law was adopted for disposing of a landlord-tenant dispute. What happened thereafter was also very unfortunate for the appellant. The appeal court on October 14, 1993 passed the following order: "The Hon'ble A.M. Bhattacharjee, the Chief Justice and The Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been dispossessed by the order passed by the writ court, had to be put back in possession after setting aside the writ Court's order. A Special Leave Petition was made against the afore- said two orders passed by the appeal court on 14th October, 1993 and 14th January, 1994. It may be mentioned here that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed for default, but later on restored on an application made by the appellant. Mr. Ganguli appearing on behalf of the respondents has not tried to justify the extraordinary and unfair ex-parte orders passed. In fact, he fairly admitted that the writ court had exceeded its jurisdiction in intervening in a private dispute. He also did not seriously object to the proposition that since by an erroneo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
