# Samir Sobhan Sanyal v. Track Trade Pvt

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 711
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-10-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22712 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/samir-sobhan-sanyal-v-track-trade-pvt-39990
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Practice
and
Procedure-
forcible
ejectment of a tenant-plea taken about
the expiry of the period of tenancy- held-
such action of putting lock on the shop-
illegal-except in accordance with law
even a person in rank of trespasser can
not be ejected- petition allowed- Specific
directions
issued
to
remain
in
possession.

Held- Para 10

It has been held by the Supreme Court in
Samir Sobhan Sanyal vs. Track Trade Pvt.
Limited AIR 1996 SC 2102 that a tenant
cannot be dispossessed without due
process of law. Even assuming that the
period of tenancy has expired, one
cannot take law into one's own hand and
forcibly throw out the erstwhile tenant
but may file a suit for eviction. Instead
of filng the suit the respondents 5 and 7
placed their lock in the shop in question
which in our opinion was wholly illegal.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1996SC 2102 relied on

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Virendra Singh and others V. The Addl. Commissioner and others
711

6. The writ petition is allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22712 of 2002

Devkinandan

...Petitioner
Versus
Civil Judge(Senior Division) and other s

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Dixit
Sri S.N. Singh
Sri A.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajesh Chandra Gupta
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Practice
and
Procedure-
forcible
ejectment of a tenant-plea taken about
the expiry of the period of tenancy- held-
such action of putting lock on the shop-
illegal-except in accordance with law
even a person in rank of trespasser can
not be ejected- petition allowed- Specific
directions
issued
to
remain
in
possession.

Held- Para 10

It has been held by the Supreme Court in
Samir Sobhan Sanyal vs. Track Trade Pvt.
Limited AIR 1996 SC 2102 that a tenant
cannot be dispossessed without due
process of law. Even assuming that the
period of tenancy has expired, one
cannot take law into one's own hand and
forcibly throw out the erstwhile tenant
but may file a suit for eviction. Instead
of filng the suit the respondents 5 and 7
placed their lock in the shop in question
which in our opinion was wholly illegal.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1996SC 2102 relied on

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. The writ petition has been filed
for a mandamus directing the respondents
2,3 and 4 to help the respondents 5 to 8 to
interfere in the peaceful possession of the
petitioner over the shop in dispute. It has
also been prayed that the respondent no. 1
be directed to open the lock placed on the
shop of the petitioner and to ensure that
the injunction order dated 4.7.2001 in suit
no. 308 of 2001 is complied with.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

The petitioner has alleged that he
was a tenant of a shop called 'Bhaiyaji
General Store' in Gautam Buddha Nagar.
It is alleged that this shop was owned
jointly by respondent 5,6,7 and 8 who
entered into a family settlement whereby
the respondent no. 6 became the sole
owner of the said shop and a room which
is situated on its western side. The
petitioner purchased this shop from the
respondent no. 6 vide sale deed executed
on 18.4.2001 by the respondent no. 6 in
favour of the petitioner. True copy of the
sale deed is Annexure 3 to the writ
petition.

3. In paragraph 11 of the writ
petition it is stated that on 17.6.2001 the
respondent no. 5 and 7 sent hooligans
(gundas) and anti social elements to
vacate the shop and hence the petitioner
submitted a complaint before the S.H.O.
Dadri, Gautam Buddha Nagar but nothing
was done. True copy of the complaint
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
dated 23.6.2001 is Annexure-7 to the writ
petition.

4. In paragraph 12 of the writ
petition it is alleged that the respondent
no. 5 and 6 forcibly locked the shop of the
petitioner on 10.7.2001 with the help of
S.H.O., respondent no. 4 although the
petitioner had obtained an injunction
order dated 4.7.2001 in civil suit no. 308
of 2001 vide Annexure 9 to the writ
petition.
Thus
the
respondents
deliberately flouted the injunction order
dated 4.7.2001 passed by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Gautam Buddha Nagar
by forcibly locking the shop of the
petitioner with the help of respondent no.
4. It is alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ
petition that the respondent no. 4 had
indulged
in
corrupt
practices
and
threatened him making demands. The
order dated 4.7.2001 directs the parties to
maintain status quo.

5. It is stated in paragraph 16 of the
writ petition that the petitioner had
supplied copy of the injunction order
dated 4.7.2001 to respondents 5, 7 and 8
but they refused to take the copy. The
petitioner also submitted a representation
to the District Magistrate on 10.10.2001
but to no avail. True copy of the
representation is Annexure-10 to the writ
petition. The petitioner also gave a copy
of the injunction order dated 4.7.2001 to
the S.S.P. and S.D.M., Gautam Buddha
Nagar but no action was taken. The
petitioner had filed writ petition no.
14356 of 2002 in this Court and this Court
by order dated 16.4.2002 had directed the
concerned
authority
to
decide
his
representation within a month. It was not
decided. In paragraph 20 of the writ
petition it is alleged that the respondents
5,7 and 8 had caused substantial damage
to the shop. The petitioner had also filed
contempt
proceedings
against
the
respondents. The petitioner has also
moved the National Human Rights
Commission alleging that he has been
tortured by the Police.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent no. 7 on behalf of the
respondent no. 5. In paragraph 3 of the
same it is stated that after 6.3.2001 the
petitioner was not a tenant in the house in
question. The shop in question was given
on rent on 24.8.1998 by the respondent
no. 5 to the petitioner under a written rent
deed for one year from 24.8.1998 to
23.8.1999 and thereafter it was given on
rent to the petitioner from 6.3.2000 to
5.3.2001 but thereafter the petitioner was
no more the tenant of the house in
question. In paragraph 4 it is denied that
the respondents 5 and 7 have made any
agreement or sale deed in favour of the
petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent
no. 6 and 8 are in collusion with the
petitioner. The sale deed is alleged to be
collusive and the respondent no. 5 has
filed a suit for cancellation of the sale
deed. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the
writ petition that on 5.3.2001 the
respondents 5 and 7 had taken possession
of the shop in question. The injunction
order dated 4.7.2001 is an exparte order
without hearing the respondent 5 to 7. The
petitioner tried to take possession back
from the respondents 5 and 7 with the
help of local police in the garb of the
order dated 4.7.2001 but he could not
succeed.

7. A rejoinder affidavit has been
filed and it is stated that the petitioners
tenancy
was
not
terminated.
The
petitioner purchased the disputed shop
from Pramod Kumar who was co-sharer
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Devkinandan V. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and others
713
of the 1/4th share. It is denied that there is
any collusion. In paragraph 9 of the
rejoinder affidavit it is stated that the
possession of the shop is with the
petitioner but the respondents had placed
their lock over the shop in possession of
the petitioner and thus had taken the law
into their own hands.

8. On the facts of the case we are
satisfied that the petitioner version is
correct and that the respondents 5 and 7
illegality placed their lock on the shop in
possession of the petitioner. Thus the
respondents have taken the law into their
own hands. We do not believe the version
of the respondent that the possession of
the shop was taken by the respondents 5
and 7 on 5.3.2001. In fact the electricity
registration certificate was issued by the
electricity Department in favour of the
petitioner on 3.7.2001 vide Annexure-6 to
the writ petition. If the possession had
been taken by the respondent no. 5 and 7
on 5.3.2001 there would have been no
occasion for the petitioner to obtain the
electricity registration certificate or to file
an FIR dated 23.6.2002 Annexure 7 to the
writ petition in which it is stated that the
respondents are threatening to take
possession of the shop. There was also no
occasion for the petitioner to have filed
the injunction suit. In the plaint of the suit
copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ
petition
it
is
mentioned
that
the
respondents came to the petitioners shop
on 17.6.2001 and 30.6.2001 armed with
lathis and dandas and tried to evict the
petitioner but were unsuccessful on those
occasions.
It
was
prayed
that
the
respondents be restrained from evicting
the petitioner from the shop in dispute.

9. On the facts of the case we are
satisfied that the possession was with the
petitioner and the respondents have
illegally put their lock in the said shop in
order to deprive the petitioner.

10. It has been held by the Supreme
Court in Samir Sobhan Sanyal vs. Tracks
Trade Pvt. Limited A.I.R. 1996 SC 2102
that a tenant cannot be dispossessed
without due process of law. Even
assuming that the period of tenancy has
expired, one cannot take law into ones
own hand and forcibly throw out the
erstwhile tenant but may file a suit for
eviction. Instead of filing the suit the
respondents 5 and 7 placed their lock in
the shop in question which in our opinion
was wholly illegal.

11. In the circumstances, we allow
this writ petition and direct that the lock
placed by the respondents be removed
immediately by the police and the
petitioner be allowed to continue in
possession of that shop in question. No
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.10.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Habeas Corpus Petition No. 14932 of
2002

Dinesh Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
K.D. Tiwari
Sri Vijendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh