The petitioner sought protection against dispossession based on an eviction order passed against a previous tenant. The State clarified via written instructions that no steps were being taken against the petitioner. The court disposed of the writ petitions by taking the State's statement on record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| No | Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPMS No. 374 of 2024 With WPMS No. 385 of 2024 WPMS No. 389 of 2024 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. |
|||
| (1) Ms. Gurbani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. |
|||
| (2) Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. |
|||
| (3) Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. (4) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 374 of 2024 alone are being considered. (5) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: - |
|||
| (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to not dispossess the petitioner from his peaceful possession of the rented premises in the absence of any legal proceedings initiated or legal order against the petitioner. |
|||
| (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to not harass the petitioner under the garb of eviction order secured in Original Suit No. 47 of 1991 against one Mr. Suresh Chandra Gupta who was the tenant of Respondent No. 7 on a certain portion of the premises situated at 61 Kanwali Road, Dehradun. |
|||
| (6) According to petitioner, he was inducted as tenant byrespondentno. 7(Sri Nirmal |
| Kumar Jain) in respect of a shop, situate at 62 Kanwali Road, Dehradun, and in the absence of any eviction order passed against the petitioner, Police Authorities are contemplating to dispossess him from the said shop. |
|---|
| (7) Mr. Suyash Pant, learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions. Today, he has produced in Court written instructions received from the Office of District Magistrate, Dehradun, which is taken on record. |
| (8) Based on instructions, learned State Counsel submits that the apprehension expressed by petitioner is baseless, as there is no move to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in question; in fact, the eviction order was passed in respect of Mr. Suresh Chandra Gupta in the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 7 under Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which was decided in his (landlord) favour and in execution of the order passed by District Magistrate in the said proceedings, the Police Authorities had taken necessary steps for dispossessing Mr. Suresh Chandra Gupta from the residential accommodation, which was let out to him. He thus submits that there is no move to dispossess the petitioner and the apprehension expressed by him is without any substance. |
| (9) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the writ petitions may be disposed of by taking the statement made by learned State Counsel on record. |
| (10) Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of by taking the statement made by learned State Counsel on record. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 04.03.2024 Aswal |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the police authorities were contemplating dispossessing the petitioner from the rented premises in the absence of a specific eviction order?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Respondent No. 3
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
