Kalyani Gupta vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

This is yet another family dispute between the mother and her son. The father-in-law, the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the petitioner’s

son have also been impleaded in the present writ petition.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that she is an aged lady of 64 years and she is the owner of the plot of land detailed in

paragraph 4 of the writ petition and of the two storied building constructed upon the said plot of land. The said building is G+1. In the ground floor

there are two rooms and one of the same is being occupied by the petitioner. The first floor of the said building is being occupied by the respondent

nos. 5 to 8. Since 2012 the said respondents were creating disturbances and were not allowing the petitioner to reside in the said property peacefully.

The husband of the petitioner expired on 2nd July, 2016 and thereafter the disturbances created by the private respondents aggravated. On 28th July,

2017 the petitioner was forcibly ousted from the room in the ground floor of the said building. Such fact was brought to the notice of the police

authorities by lodging a complaint. However, no steps were taken and she lodged a further complaint on 4th January, 2018 but in vain. Aggrieved

thereby the petitioner approached this Court.

The learned advocate appearing for the private respondent nos. 5 to 8 denies the contention of the petitioner and submits that the said respondents

have not created any disturbance and the allegation that the petitioner has been forcibly ousted from the said property is absolutely unfounded.

Records reveal that when the matter appeared for hearing on 16th February, 2018 the learned advocate appearing for the private respondents

submitted that “they have no objection in the petitioner residing at the ground floor of the premises concerned.†Thereafter when the matter

appeared before this Court on 8th May, 2018, Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the police authorities placed a report filed by the

respondent no. 4. In the said report it has been stated that the petitioner’s complaint was enquired into and a proceeding under Section 107 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure has been drawn up to maintain peace and tranquility.

However, on 8th May, 2018, this Court requested the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to make a sincere endeavour to resolve

the dispute. Today Mr. Mondal submits that in terms of the earlier direction of this Court the learned advocates made a sincere endeavour to resolve

the dispute, however, the petitioner is insisting that the father-in-law, mother-inlaw and the sister-in-law of her son should first vacate the property and

only thereafter the dispute can be settled.

The learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that the private respondent nos. 5 to 8 have invested huge amount of money

towards construction of the house in question. Such financial assistance was extended since it was agreed upon by the parties including the petitioner

that upon construction of the house they would be allowed to occupy the first floor of the said building. According to him there are two rooms in the

first floor. The respondent nos. 5 to 8 are occupying one of the rooms in the first floor of the building and the private respondent no. 9, being the son

of the petitioner, is occupying the other room.

The contention of the private respondents that financial assistance was given towards construction of the house has been denied by the learned

advocate appearing for the petitioner.

The learned advocate appearing for the private respondent nos. 5 to 8 have categorically stated that they have no objection in the event the petitioner

resides in the ground floor of the premises.

In such circumstances, this Court directs that the private respondents shall allow the petitioner to reside in the ground floor of the said building

peacefully and shall not create any disturbance.

So far as the dispute as regards the occupation of the first floor of the said building by the private respondent nos. 5 to 8, the petitioner would be at

liberty to take necessary steps and to assert her right before the competent civil forum.

With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary

formalities.