Sanjay Choudhury vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Debangsu Basak, J

Petitioner complains of police inaction.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner lodged a complaint about the wrongdoings of the private respondent. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the property concerned. He draws the attention of the Court to the rent receipt as also the certificate of enlistment in support of the contention that, the petitioner is a tenant under the private respondent. He submits that, the private respondent took the law into his own hand and threw out the petitioner from the property concerned. The police are inactive. He relies upon an order dated April 5, 2017 passed in W.P. No. 8812(W) of 2017 (Lakshi Narayan Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and submits that, Sections 380/454/455 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) ought to beadded to the array of acquisitions on the First Information Report (FIR).

He submits that, the Court should allow the petitioner to obtain possession tenanted premises.

State and the private respondents are represented.

Learned advocate for the State submits that, the complaint of the petitioner was registered as an FIR being Burdwan P.S. Case No. 692 of 2019 dated September 2, 2019 under Section 448/379/427/34 of the IPC and that the investigation with regard thereto is in progress.

Learned advocate for the private respondent submits that, there subsist an order passed by the Civil Court being Title Suit No. 254 of 2019. By an order dated June 19, 2019, the writ petitioner as the defendant was restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The writ petitioner was restrained from breaking the shutter/room lock of the rooms situated at the ground floor of the suit property. He submits that, the petitioner was served with the copy of the order.

In the facts of the present case, the petitioner claims tenancy. There are overwhelming evidence made available on record about the tenancy. There is nothing on record to suggest that, the tenancy was surrendered in a process known to law or that the petitioner was evicted from the tenanted premises through a process known to law. It is contention of the private respondent that, the petitioner surrendered the tenancy. There is nothing on record to suggest that, such surrender was in writing.

However, there subsist an order dated June 19, 2019 passed in Title Suit No. 254 of 2019. The order dated June 19, 2019 is between the petitioner and the private respondent. Such order is binding on the private parties. As a Writ Court, I am not called upon to sit in appeal over such order. The police are bound to act in terms of such order. The private parties, therefore, are at liberty to avail of their remedies with respect to the order dated June 19, 2019 passed in Title Suit No. 254 of 2019.

In Lakshi Narayan Mondal (supra), a decree holder was dispossessed on the day following the decree holder being put in possession in execution to such decree. In such circumstances, the Court directed the decree holder to be put in possession immediately. In the present case, there subsist an order passed by the Civil Court in favour of the private respondent.

So far as the police complaint is concerned, the police registered the same as a FIR and are investigating thereon. It is the contention of the petitioner that, Sections 380/454/455 of the IPC should be added to the array of acquisitions in the FIR. No doubt, the police on investigation, find that, there are material evidence in support of such allegations, will take appropriate steps with regard thereto.

W.P. 16588(W) of 2019 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

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