JUDGMENT
S.N. Aggarwal, J.
Crl.M.A. No. 8570/2006 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking various reliefs in relation to property No. 1/799-800, Rehman Building, Shahdara, Delhi in which he claims to be a tenant direct under Dr. Jaimal Singh.
2. Notice. Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. Respondent No. 3 is present in person. He also accepts notice of this petition.
3. Counsel on both sides have submitted that the Court may hear them and dispose of this writ petition at this stage itself. Hence, I proceed to dispose of this writ petition at admission stage itself.
4. Dr. Jaimal Singh was the owner of property bearing No. 1/799-800, Rehman Building, Shahdara, Delhi. He appointed Shri Prahlad Singh as his attorney sometime in the year 1959 and put him in possession of the said property and authorized him to manage the same. Shri Prahlad Singh, attorney of original owner Dr. Jaimal Singh has two daughters Ms. Balwinder Kaur and Ms. Inderpal Kaur. Dr. Jaimal Singh, owner of the property, filed a FIR being FIR No. 337/1974 under Section 406/120-B with Police Station Tilak Marg against his attorney Prahlad Singh and Sardar Singh (brother-in-law of Prahlad Singh) in the year 1974. Sardar Singh (brother-in-law of Prahlad Singh) expired subsequent to registration of aforesaid FIR. In this FIR, it was alleged that Prahlad Singh has misused his authority and by misusing the same he has transferred the title of aforementioned property in the name of his two daughters Ms. Balwinder Kaur and Ms. Inderpal Kaur. Shri Prahlad Singh was convicted of charge under Section 406/120-B IPC by the Court of Mr. Vinod Kumar, ACMM, Karkardooma, Delhi vide judgment dated 26.11.2005. When order on sentence was passed, the convict Prahlad Singh was released on probation but the Court exercising its powers under Section 452 Cr. PC directed the convict Prahlad Singh and his two daughters Ms. Balwinder Kaur and Ms. Inderpal Kaur to deliver the vacant possession of the entire property in question to the legal heirs of the complainant Dr. Jaimal Singh. Respondent No. 3 is the son and one of the legal heirs of Dr. Jaimal Singh.
5. While the criminal case against convict Prahlad Singh vide FIR No. 337/1974 under Section 406/120-B IPC Police Station Tilak Marg was pending, one Sarabjit Singh was inducted in Shop No. 7 on the ground floor of the subject property sometime in 1988. This was allegedly done by Dr. Jaimal Singh’s attorney Prahlad Singh. It is contended by petitioner’s learned Counsel that his client Jai Singh was inducted into the first floor as a tenant by owner of the property Dr. Jaimal Singh himself in 1962 and ever since then he continues to be in possession of the said portion of the property. One more person Smt. Shakuntla Devi was inducted into Shop No. 3 on the ground floor of the aforementioned property but the date when she was so inducted has not been given by counsel on either side. Shri Sarabjit Singh and Smt. Shakuntla Devi who are occupants of Shop No. 7 & 3 respectively on the ground floor have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to protect their possession before the Civil Judge at Karkardooma and in view of proceedings pursuant to FIR of 1974, the proceedings in their said civil suit were adjourned sine-die. The petitioner Jai Singh also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and in his said suit, decided by Shri Rakesh Kumar, Civil Judge, Delhi on 22.03.2006, the respondent No. 3 gave a statement before the Court that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed without due process of law. The order in the civil suit of petitioner Jai Singh was based on the statement of respondent No. 3 himself. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 (SHO, P.S. Shahdara) took possession of the ground floor of the suit property for its delivery to the legal heirs of complainant Dr. Jaimal Singh. The petitioner Jai Singh still continues to be in possession of the first floor of the said property.
6. One of the prayers made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that this Court should restrain respondent No. 2 (SHO, P.S. Shahdara) from taking possession of his first floor portion and to further hold that the order dated 26.11.2005 passed by the Court of Shri Vinod Kumar, ACMM, Karkardooma is not binding on him and the same is hit by Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act. The prayers made in this writ petition have been opposed on behalf of the respondents. The respondent No. 3 who is an Advocate of this Court has submitted that the convict Prahlad Singh and his two daughters Ms. Balwinder Kaur and Ms. Inderpal Kaur have filed two appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 02/2006 & 06/2006 against the order of conviction dated 26.11.2005 and both these appeals have been dismissed by the Court of Dr. R.K. Yadav, ASJ, Karkardooma, Delhi vide judgment dated 28.03.2006. The respondent No. 3 has further brought to the notice of the Court that Ms. Balwinder Kaur and Ms. Inderpal Kaur, daughters of convict Prahlad Singh have also filed a Revision Petition being Crl. Rev. No. 217/2006 in this Court which was heard by Badar Durrez Ahmed, J and he passed an order on 05.07.2006 clarifying that any transfer of premises in question would be subject to the outcome of the Revision Petition. The respondent No. 3 has further contended that the steps for dispossession of the petitioner are steps in due process of law and he has submitted that on 22.03.2006 when he made the statement before the Court of Shri Rakesh Kumar, Civil Judge, Delhi that he would not dispossess the petitioner without due process of law was on account of the fact that the operation of the judgment dated 26.11.2005 was stayed by the Appellate Court.
7. I have considered all the above submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 3 as well as the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner claims himself to be in possession of first floor of the suit property since 1962. The FIR in which directions were given for delivering possession of the entire property to the legal heirs of Dr. Jaimal Singh was filed in the year 1974. The petitioner’s learned Counsel has contended that there is not even a whisper in the whole of the FIR about the possession of petitioner Jai Singh in the suit property. The respondent No. 3 has contended that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2005 directing delivery of possession of the entire property, then appropriate remedy for him is to file an appeal as provided under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads as follows:
454. Appeal against orders under Section 452 or Section 453-
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by a Court under Section 452 or Section 453, may appeal against it to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from convictions by the former Court.
(2) On such appeal, the Appellate Court may direct the order to be stayed pending disposal of the appeal, or may modify, alter or annul the order and make any further orders that may be just.
(3) The powers referred to in Sub-section (2) may also be exercised by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision while dealing with the case in which the order referred to in Sub-section (1) was made.
8. Admittedly the petitioner Jai Singh was not heard in any proceedings before orders for delivering the possession was passed. I am of the view that no person can be condemned unheard as it is the first principle of natural justice. In case the petitioner is in possession of first floor of the subject property since 1962, then I wonder how he can be dispossessed under the garb of powers exercised by criminal Court under Section 452 Cr. PC as he was not heard on his grievance. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has to exhaust his statutory remedy in case he is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2005 as provided under Section 454 Cr.PC reproduced hereinabove.
9. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his possession of first floor be protected for a reasonable time to enable him to file the appeal under Section 454 Cr.PC and bring all the relevant facts to the notice of the competent Court.
10. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court in appropriate proceedings as per law for vindication of his grievance. However, it is directed that the petitioner be not dispossessed for a period of two weeks from today to enable him to exhaust his remedy as per law.
11. It is made clear that no observation made in this order shall influence the proceedings to be taken by the petitioner before the competent Court in appropriate proceedings.
12. A copy of this order be given dusty to the counsel for the petitioner.