THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.29636 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the highhanded and illegal action of the police officials of Charminar Police Station in getting the petitioners evicted from the shop bearing M.No.21-1-648, Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad, by force, threat and coercion and by illegally detaining them as illegal, without jurisdiction and abuse of power.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are tenants of the subject premises having taken the premises on lease from the respondent No.5 in the year 1991 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. At the time of taking the premises on lease, Rs.65,000/- was paid as good will. There were misunderstandings between the petitioners and the respondent No.5. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 and 12 others filed R.C.No.440 of 2003 before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking enhancement of rent and they also filed R.C.No.349 of 2003 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioners. R.C.No.440 of 2003 was allowed by order dated 17.12.2007 fixing the rent at the rate of Rs.6,405/-. The petitioner No.1 filed preferred an appeal in R.A.No.18of 2008 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 08.02.2011. CRP.No.946 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner No.1 challenging the judgment dated 08.02.2011. CRP was admitted and interim stay was granted vide order dated 25.03.2011 and the petitioner No.1 had been paying 50% of the enhanced rent, apart from original rent of Rs.800/-. R.C.No.349 of 2003 was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2004 rejecting the plea of bonafide requirement. R.A.No.145 of 2014 filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes 2 Court, Hyderabad by judgment dated 19.09.2017. The landlords did not prefer any revision and thus, the order in R.A.No.145 of 2014 became final.
3. While so, the respondents No.5 and 6 hatched a plan to forcefully evict the petitioners from the subject premises with the aid of police. One Bheem Chand filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against Smt. Kamala Bai, the mother of the respondent No.5, in respect of the subject premises in O.S.No.497 of 2015 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. When the said suit was coming for argument of the defendant, on 13.07.2018 at about 4 PM, about to 7 to 8 policemen from Charminar Police Station came to the shop and asked the petitioners to come to the police station. They went to the police station. They were made to sit in the visitor room for few hours. Later, at about 7 PM, they were taken to the room of the ACP in the first floor. They were made to sit and ACP made some signal to the SI and CI, who were already present in the room. Immediately, the SI came forward and hit the petitioner No.1 on the backside of the neck asking why they are not vacating the shop and asked who is Bheem Chand and sent them to ground floor. At about 11 PM, the petitioner No.2 was asked to come to SI cabin and was asked as to who prepared the agreement in the name of Bheem Chand and was beaten on his hand with leather belt for about one hour. The respondents No.5 and 6 came to the police station around 12 midnight to 1 AM, met the SI and went away staring to them. Again in the night of 14.07.2018, they were called to the CI room and they were asked to hand over the shop to the owners within one hour to enable the police to release them or else they will not be released and will be taken on remand.
3
4. It is further stated that unable to bear the pressure of police and illegal detention and also due to ill-health, the petitioners accepted to vacate the subject premises, though Court judgments were in their favour. The police took the petitioners to the shop around 4.30 to 5.00 AM on 15.07.2018 and removed gaddis and some cartons of sarees from the shop. The rest of the racks and other material were left in the shop. They were forced to sign on some typed and blank papers as if the petitioners had voluntarily surrendered the shop by vacating it on their own. The matter was prepared by the police. Any papers showing that the petitioners had voluntarily surrendered the shop were under pressure, by force and threat exerted on them by the police of Charminar Police Station. It is further stated that after signing the papers and taking away some material from the shop, the petitioners were set free at about 6 AM on 15.07.2018. Later, they came to know that the suit for specific performance, filed by Bheem Chand, was withdrawn. As the eviction case filed by the landlords was dismissed, there was no question of petitioners handing over the possession of the premises voluntarily. The police without registering any FIR and without revealing to the petitioners as to what was the complaint made against them, got them signed some papers and forcefully evicted the petitioners from the tenanted shop.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 the allegations made in the writ petition were denied. It was stated that a complaint was lodged by the respondent No.5 on 23.06.2015 stating that the petitioner No.1 and Bheem Chand omitted offence of cheating and created forged document in respect of the premises bearing No.21-1-648, Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad. Cr.No.119 of 2015 was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined. Notices 4 under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. were issued to the accused persons. The investigation revealed that the petitioners (A1 and A2) along with A3 (Bheem Chand) created false and fabricated document. Charge sheet was filed and the case was registered in C.C.no.731 of 2018 in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The allegation of the petitioners that they were threatened and forced to deliver possession of the subject premises to the landlord is false and incorrect.
6. In the counter filed by the respondents No.5 and 6, it is stated that Bheem Chandn filed a suit for specific performance on the strength of forged and fabricated document. A complaint was lodged by them and the same was registered as Cr.No.119 of 2015. As per the confessional statement of Bheem Chand, the documents were created in respect of the shop in question and Bheem Chand in connivance with the petitioners herein had forged the documents and filed the suit. On the basis of the confessional statement of Bheem Chand, the petitioners were arrayed as A2 and A3. The investigation was carried on by the police and FSL report received by the police opined that the original document was forged and fabricated. After receiving notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C on 13.07.2018, the petitioners approached the respondents and their family members for settling the matter amicably and received a sum of Rs,.10,00,000/- and delivered possession of the subject premises under letter dated 14.07.2018. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they were forcefully evicted from the subject premises is incorrect. The suit in O.S.No.497 of 2015 was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners have voluntarily vacated the subject premises.
5
7. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ruprendra Mahendra, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
8. From the above sequence of events, this Court is of the opinion that there are several disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The filing of complaint, registration of FIR, receipt of notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and charge sheet filed therein are not disputed by the petitioners. So also the filing of suit and FSL report in Cr.No.119 of 2015 that the suit agreement of sale is forged is also not disputed by the petitioners. It is also a fact that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn.
9. In the above circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners that they were forced to sign the document and hand over possession of the subject premises. Though the petitioners are not parties to the specific performance suit in O.S.No.497 of 2015, it is not denied that they are co-accused in Cr.No.119 of 2015. Therefore, it cannot be held that the police have exceeded their jurisdiction and compelled the petitioners to deliver possession of the subject premises to the respondents No.5 and 6. There are no merits in the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 29, 2021 DSK