JUDGMENT
V.B. Bansal, J.
(1) Shri P.K. Datta Chaudhary petitioner has by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) prayed for the quashing of the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, respondent No. 2 in respect of the premises bearing No. B-322, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi thereby proceedings under Section 145 of the Code were started and the permits were sealed.
(2) It would be necessary to give some details of the facts leading to the filing of this petition.
(3) On 8th August, 1983 Ranjit Bose respondent No. 3 herein filed an application under Sections 145/146 of the Code in the court of the Sdm New Delhi. It was, inter alia stated by him that be bad been in lawful possession of the entire ground floor of House No. B-322, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi as a tenant of the respondent-landlord. It was further stated that since January 1983 the landlord was putting pressure on him to vacate the premises or to face dire Consequences. The petitioner went on to state that on 3rd February, 1983 an attempt was made by the respondent to dispossess him on which he lodged a report with the police while on 31st March 1983 the respondent locked the back door of the premises thereby causing inconvenience to him. A threat was also given that he would be dispossessed regarding which a report was lodged with the police. He had also pleaded that on 10th June, 1983 the respondent with the help of others took key of the premises from his servant Sue Kumar and by taking forcible possession threw away furniture and other house-house-hold goods as a result of which Fir 616/83, under Sections 448/34 Indian Penal Code was registered. He bad also claimed that proceedings under Sections 197/151 of the Code were initiated by the police against both the parties over the disputed premises and that the respondent and his men were bent upon to dispossess the applicant from the whole of his house who had already taken possession of one room. A prayer was, thus made for taking proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code.
(4) Report dated 24th October, 1983 was obtained from the police and thereafter order dated 29th November, 1983 was passed under Sections 145(1) of the Code. The property was also attached.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact Susheel Basu brother of the respondent was the tenant in the premises in question who bad voluntarily vacated the premises and handed over its possession to the petitioner regarding which a document was also executed by him It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent made efforts to take forcible possession of the premises and lodged a false report with the police as a result of which the petitioner was challenged. He has, however, claimed that a positive finding has been given by Metropolitan Magistrate holding that Ranjit Bose bad never been in possession of the premises. He has, thus submitted that after (his finding by a court of competent jurisdiction it was incumbent upon the Sdm to have dropped the proceedings and. thus, to deliver the possession of the disputed premises to the petitioner. He has, thus, claimed that the continuance of the proceedings by the Sdm even after the aforesaid decision of the competent court is an abuse of the process of court and so prayed that the proceedings be quashed.
(6) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions but have not been able to agree with the same.
(7) A perusal of the file shows that in answer to the notice given to the present petitioner on the application of Ranjit Bose a reply was filed in which it was, inter alia, pleaded that the house was given on rent to one Sushit Basu in June/July 1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1400.00 and that the premises were vacated by Ranjit Bose on or about 10th June, 1983. It was further pleaded that Ranjit Bose is the younger brother of Sushil Basu and both of them were residing/running a guest house and Susbil Basu closed the business in the month of January, 1983 and went to Calcutta while Ranjit Bose remained in the premises in order to protect the furniture. It is, thus, clear that the present petitioner bad been claiming that the possession of the disputed premises was delivered to him by Ranjit Bose the present respondent who was controverter to provide a speedy remedy to the parties to decide about the question of possession and to prevent breach of peace. It is not within the competence or jurisdiction of the Sdm to decide about the title as to who is the owner or entitled to get the possession. All that is required to be decided by the Sdm in these proceedings is as to who was in possession on the date of order .or ‘within a period of two months prior to it and to protect the possession of such person. The aggrieved party has to get the question of title determined from a court of competent jurisdiction. Once the 231 proceedings under Section 145(1)of the Code arc initiated and if the Sdm finds it to be a case of emergency he has the power to attach’ the disputed premises. The satisfaction under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code has to be to the Magistrate. It is not for the appellate court or even the High Court to question whether the material before the Sdm was sufficient for his satisfaction to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. Reference in this regard can be made to the case R.H.Bhutani v. Miss Man J. Desai . Even otherwise, as already referred to, it cannot be said that there was no power with the Sdm to have initiated the proceedings or even for attaching the premises keeping in view the report dated 24th October, 1613 given by the police.
(8) The claim of learned counsel for the petitioner has been made that the petitioner was acquitted in case Fir No. 616/83 by Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 21st March, 1986 when it was clearly held that the possession was that of the present petitioner and thus, the Sdm should have dropped the proceedings and handed over the possession to the present petitioner. The question for consideration is as to whether the aforesaid judgment dated 2lst March, 1986 can be said to be of a court of competent jurisdiction. The law is well settled that if there is a finding by a civil court in respect of the subject-matter of the proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code the Sdm has to dispose of those proceedings in terms of the decision of the civil court The judgment of the metropolitan magistrate, New Delhi, however, can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be a judgment of a competent court 80 as to bind the learned Sdm It is also significant to note that Ranjit Bose was only a complainant in the said case but otherwise he bad no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was only one of the witnesses in that case In these circumstances it cannot be said that the aforesaid judgment is a judgment which would be sufficient to dispose of these proceedings leaving the aggrieved party to approach the civil court In fact, such an application was moved by the present petitioner before the learned Sdm who after getting a reply of Ranjit Bose dismissed the same vide order dated 30th June, 1987.
(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in fact there was no emergency to attach the premises in question and there has not been any quarrel between the parties for a long period and this ground alone was sufficient to drop the proceedings. I do not find any force in this submission. Admittedly, the premises were attached and, thus, none of the forties was in possession In these circumstances, there could possibly be no question of any apprehension of breach of peace during the period when the property is under attachment. Thus, this could hardly be a ground to drop the proceedings.
(10) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the proceedings have been prolonged for a very long period and this ground alone should be sufficient to drop the proceedings. Admittedly, the application for initiating proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code was moved by Ranjit Bose on 8th August, 1983 and the proceedings are continuing. The purpose of taking proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code is to decide expeditiously as to who was in actual possession so as to restore the possession to the concerned party leaving the question of title to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. The purpose, however has not been achieved in the instant case and the proceedings have prolonged. The object cannot be achieved by quashing the proceedings since it would be again a problem to be faced by the Police ai to whom possession should be delivered. I am, thus, of the considered view that it is a case in which a direction is essential to be given to the learned Sdm to conclude the proceedings expeditiously within four months.
(11) In view of my aforesaid discussion, the petition stands dismissed. The learned Sdm is, however, directed to dispose of the proceedings within four months from the date he received the file. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sdm on 24th September, 1990.