9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to pass a common judgment in the aforesaid two Appeals. 3. It appears from the record that the Appellants were tenants of the original landlord viz. Sangli Bank Limited in respect of the aforesaid premises. An offence bearing MECR No.1 of 2003 came to be registered at the instance of the complainant viz. Rakesh Agarwal against M/s. Roofit Industries Limited and its directors. It further appears from the record that the said accused in MECR No.1 of 2003 were operating its transaction from the premises of which the Appellants were and are tenants. It further appears from the record that the investigating agency during the course of investigation sealed the premises on 8 April 2003. 4. From the record it further revealed that after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1 of 2003, were under investigation. 6. The Senior Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Zone 7, CB-CID, Mumbai has submitted a report dated 26 February 2014 in this Court wherein apart from mentioning the facts of the investigation pertaining to MECR No.1 of 2003 which has now culminated in MPID Special Case No.34 of 2004, in paragraph 13 has mentioned that, during the course of investigation of the said crime, it was transpired that the present Appellants are nowhere concerned with the said crime committed by Roofit Industries Limited and that the Appellants are not accused in the said MECR No.1 of 2003. It has been further stated that the Appellants had given the premises Nos.502 and 501 to the said accused i.e. Roofit Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t without following due process of law. 9. 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. We are of the opinion that 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. 10. As stated above, 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 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
