Press Reporter News Service
Chandigarh, July 28
The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has asserted that the rule of regulation is alive within the nation and official equipment can’t be permitted for use for oppression, whereas rapping the Karnal Deputy Commissioner (DC) for displaying full immaturity and unawareness of the elemental provisions of the regulation.
“The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, can be effectively suggested to be extra circumspect sooner or later,” the Excessive Courtroom asserted. The admonition got here in case of a widow allegedly compelled to take shelter in a relative’s home after her belongings and different articles have been “thrown out” of her “rented” lodging.
Taking over the petition filed by “tenant” Harjeet Kaur, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul asserted that the officer had no enterprise of getting into a landlord-tenant dispute sub judice within the civil court docket.
Justice Kaul asserted that surprisingly, the owner had approached the DC solely with a grievance to register a case in opposition to the petitioner for being in unauthorised possession of the home and irregular cost of hire.
The officer, in his over-enthusiasm and presumably in an effort to please the owner and one other respondent, whom he described in his affidavit as a retiree from “dignified authorities service”, ordered an inquiry.
In a tearing hurry, he then ordered the petitioner’s eviction from the home although he was effectively conscious and aware that civil and hire proceedings between the events have been pending in courts involved.
“The motion of the respondent is against the law and void ab initio. I’m afraid and in addition constrained to look at that the respondent has exhibited complete immaturity and ignorance of the fundamental provisions of regulation whereas passing the impugned order,” Justice Kaul asserted.
In her detailed order, Justice Kaul noticed that the DC “unabashedly” said that there was no lapse on his half, however neither his affidavit nor the impugned order disclosed underneath what provisions it was handed. The state counsel couldn’t seek advice from any provisions underneath which it was handed.
The state counsel pleaded that the impugned order was not handed with any mala fide intent or bias, however miserably didn’t fulfill the court docket qua its legality. He conceded that the appliance for eviction was not maintainable and the DC couldn’t have ordered eviction as soon as the civil court docket and the Lease Controller have been seized of the matter.
Setting apart the impugned ejectment order, Justice Kaul directed the restoration of possession by August 1. The Karnal Superintendent of Police was directed to make sure clean and hurdle-free strategy of handing again possession.