Kali Nath Singh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Debangsu Basak, J

Petitioner complains of police inaction.

Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner is a tenant in respect of an immovable property. The landlord without taking due recourse under the law, evicted the petitioner by erecting a boundary wall and thereafter erecting a gate so as to deny the petitioner's entry into the tenancy of the petitioner.

State and the private respondents are represented.

Learned advocate for the private respondent submits that, the petitioner is a habitual defaulter of payment of rent. The petitioner obtained tenancy from the private respondent in the year 2014. He left the tenancy without paying rent. He came back in 2015 and again left. In 2017, a fresh tenancy was granted. This time, he made over some cheques towards payment of rent which upon presentation were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The petitioner thereafter, left the tenancy. When the petitioner left the tenanted premises, it was made known to the petitioner that, he will not be put in possession thereafter as the private respondent requires the premises for the marriage of his daughter.

Few facts are admitted in this case. The first admitted fact that, there is a relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent as landlord and tenant. Such relationship relates to an immovable property. Such relationship is yet to be determined by a process known to law.

The other admitted fact is that, the private respondent erected a boundary wall and a gate so as to prevent the petitioner from having ingress and egress to his tenancy.

A tenant enjoys certain protections. A tenant cannot be evicted without the due process of law. In the present case, the tenancy of the petitioner is yet to be determined by a process known to law. The private respondent is yet to produce a notice determining the tenancy of the petitioner. Nothing is placed on record to suggest that, a Court of competent jurisdiction passed a decree for eviction and that, such decree stands executed as against the petitioner. In absence of such proceeding being taken for the purpose of determining the tenancy of the petitioner and evicting the petitioner from the tenanted premises, any other action taken at the behest of the landlord to create any obstruction in the proper enjoyment of the tenancy will constitute an action taken by the landlord in breach of law. It will tantamount to the landlord taking the law into his own hand. The petitioner has a right to property recognised under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Such right needs protection. Police are required to protect the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the police to provide adequate police personnel at the locale so as to allow the petitioner to break-open all locks, gates, walls and any obstruction from the public road to his premises, without breach of peace and public tranquility.

In the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to permit the respondents to file affidavits.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within two weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed a week thereafter.

List the writ petition under the same heading three weeks hence.

It is clarified that, this order is as an interim measure and that, it will abide by the result of the writ petition. The petitioner will bear the costs and expences of the removal of the obstructions as allowed herein. The petitioner is put on notice that in the event he is unsuccessful in the writ petition, he will rebuild everything that he demolishes to gain access in terms of the order.

The police will videograph the entire process and keep record of the same.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.