Satish Kumar Singh And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners along with Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate.

Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.3.

Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for the following relief:

"For quashing of the order dated 10.2.2012 including further order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the Sub divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in Misc. Petition No.875 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub divisional Magistrate, Deoghar has given and handed over the possession of the flats, which were taken by the petitioners on lease from Prabhat Kumar Tiwary, opposite party no.3, herein, in which the petitioners were residing as tenants, which is situated at Indra Nagar at Mouza Madari Chak, plot no.153 under J.B. No.3 without issuance of any show cause to the petitioners, who are the tenants and lease holder of the flat in question and /or Your Lordships may further be pleased to restore the possession of the petitioners in the flat/rooms in question."

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the impugned order dated 10.02.2012, which has been passed by the learned court below is set-aside on account of violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the said order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

He further submits that the petitioners had suo moto appeared before the learned court below and filed a petition on 11.02.2012, but by that time order dated 10.02.2012 was already passed. He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 10.02.2012, Memo No.92 dated 10.02.2012 was issued, which was slightly modified vide Memo No.107 dated 16.02.2012. Counsel submits that if the order dated 10.02.2012 is set-aside, then consequently, the Memo No.92 dated 10.02.2012 and Memo No.107 dated 16.02.2012 are also required to be set-aside. While advancing the argument, the counsel submits that the petitioners are the tenant over the premises and the opposite party no.3 is the landlord. He submits that the police after getting secret information had raided the premises and thereafter the goods were seized and the premises was locked in which petitioners are the tenants.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.3 submits that the premises belongs to the opposite party no.3 and he is the landlord of the premises. The opposite party no. 3 had filed a petition that the premises be released in favour of opposite party no.3 and the goods, which have been seized be removed by preparing an inventory which was allowed by the impugned order, but he does not deny that as per the order-sheet itself, impugned order was passed on 10.02.2012 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is no dispute that the order dated 10.02.2012 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly the premises involved in this case, was in occupation of the petitioners at the relevant point of time and the opposite party no.3 had filed a petition for release of the premises, but at the same time, it is not in dispute that the order dated 10.02.2012, by which the premises is sought to be released in favour of the landlord (opposite party no.3), has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners (tenants).

This Court further finds that a petition dated 11.02.2012 objecting to the petition filed by the opposite party no.3, was filed by the petitioners, but the same was filed after passing of the impugned order dated 10.02.2012. This Court further finds that pursuant to order dated 10.02.2012, Memo No.92 dated 10.02.2012 was issued, which was slightly modified vide Memo No.107 dated 16.02.2012. Considering the fact that the petitioners have not been given an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of order dated 10.02.2012, the impugned order dated 10.02.2012 is hereby set-aside on account of violation of principles of natural justice. This Court is of the considered view that the order for release of the premises/goods should have been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well.

Since order dated 10.02.2012 has been set-aside, therefore, consequential Memo No.92 dated 10.02.2012 as well as Memo No.107 dated 16.02.2012, both issued in the proceedings before the learned court below are also set-aside.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned court below for passing appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing the parties. The learned court below is directed to pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks from the date of appearance of the parties.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 19th August, 2019.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the rival claims of the respective parties.