Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Papiya Sengupta (Nee Mukherjee) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 April, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present: Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy.
W.P. No. 27855 (w) of 2013
Smt. Papiya Sengupta (Nee Mukherjee)
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner: Mr. Marttanda Pratap Chakraborty,
For the State : Mr. Mintu Kumar Goswami,
Heard on : 20.03.2014
Judgement on: 4.4.2014
Ashim Kumar Roy,J.:
This writ application has been moved seeking quashing of the impugned order being Annexure P-6 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent authorities to evict the writ petitioner from the premises in question.
The writ petitioner is the wife of respondent no.7, whereas the respondent no.6 is her father-in-law.
According to her case after her marriage, she along with her husband, respondent no. 7 started living at the Flat No. C/16 Baltikuri, Government Housing Estate, Baltikuri Howrah, which was under the occupation of her father-in-law, the respondent no.6 in the capacity of a tenant under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 along with other members of her in-laws house. During her stay there, she gave birth to a female child. It is now contended initially after marriage, her conjugal life was happy and peaceful but after a few days, the members of her in-laws, more particularly, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 started torturing her both mentally and physically. Thereafter, the said respondents and her other in-laws abandoned her there and her minor daughter and left the place. It is submitted during the period when the respondent no.6 was not there, it was the writ petitioner who had been regularly paying rent for the said flat and the same was duly received by the respondent no. 6. It is then added in the meanwhile, the writ petitioner moved an application invoking the provision of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah being Misc. Case No. 450 of 2011, where the relief sought for was a protection order under Section 18, residence order of shared household under Section 19 and for compensation and for other reliefs and obtained an interim order passed on January 13, 2012 and the same is still pending.
In course of his submissions, the learned counsel of the petitioner drew the attention of this court to annexure P-5 and pointed out as because the respondent no.6 was not in occupation of the flat in question, the respondent no.5, the Estate Manager, Estate Directorate, Government of West Bengal, first issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why his tenancy shall not be cancelled. Thereafter by an order subsequently passed, the tenancy was terminated and the respondent no.6 was directed to hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent authorities. He then added that copies of both the show cause notice as well as the termination order were served on the writ petitioner and communicated to her. He then invited the court's attention to annexure P-6 and pointed out that by this order, the order of termination of tenancy was cancelled but although such order was communicated to the respondent no.6 but nothing was intimated to the writ petitioner. He then vehemently submitted that now taking advantage of that order, he reasonably apprehends the respondent no.6 will again forcibly enter into the said premises and disturb her to live there peacefully with her minor daughter. Therefore, it is submitted that impugned order be quashed and the respondent no.6 shall be restrained from disturbing his possession in respect thereof. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposed this application and submitted that this is a purely a private dispute between the writ petitioner and the private respondents and therefore this writ application cannot be sustained and prayed the same be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and other materials on record. It is an admitted position that the respondent no.6, the father-in-law of the writ petitioner is a lawful tenant in respect of Flat No. C/16 situated at Baltikuri Government Housing Estate as a member of no income group under the State of West Bengal. Now, after the tenancy was terminated on the ground that the respondent no.6 has left the said flat, the order of termination has been cancelled. Thus if the prayer of the writ petitioner is allowed and order of cancellation of termination of tenancy is quashed, that would not serve the purpose of the writ petitioner inasmuch as an outcome of the order she has also to vacate the flat. On the other hand, after the order of termination is restored then the order of restraining the respondent no. 6 to enter into the said flat would be of no meaning.
Now coming to the other aspect of the case, I find that the writ petitioner has already moved a court invoking the provision of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with two fold prayers, viz., for compensation, maintenance and for shared household. However, the court concerned while allowing her prayer for maintenance but without allowing her prayer for shared household directed the respondent no.7 to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month to her as rent. The said order was never challenged and the same has already reached its finality by efflux of time.
For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ application and same accordingly stands dismissed but without any order as to costs. However, I make it clear this order will not preclude the writ petitioner to seek appropriate relief from a competent court in accordance with law.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel for the parties as early as possible.
(Ashim Kumar Roy,J.)