Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, June 11: High Court has rapped the litigant for bringing the civil dispute before the court and also recorded that the police also cannot meddle in such disputes as such disputes fall outside the scope of criminal law enforcement agencies.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed the plea of one Abdul Majid Dar of Moominabad Srinagar by recording that the dispute is purely of civil in nature. The court also held that the police have no jurisdiction to intervene in disputes that are purely civil in nature, including those arising between landlord and tenant. “Such matters fall exclusively within the domain of competent civil courts and outside the scope of criminal law enforcement agencies”, Justice Nargal observed.
The petitioner-Dar had approached the court alleging police inaction over a complaint he had filed concerning the poor structural condition of a shopping line built over his ancestral property.
Dar, appearing in person to plead his case before the court argued before the bench that he owns six out of thirteen shops constructed on his ancestral land, many of which are currently occupied by tenants. He contended that these shops were in a severely dilapidated state and posed a threat to life and property.
Dar subsequently lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Batamaloo, seeking intervention to avert a possible mishap. The Court observed that the petition of Dar was nothing more than an indirect attempt to force the eviction of tenants under the guise of safety concerns:
When the police did not take sufficient action, the petitioner approached the High Court for protection of his legal and fundamental rights, primarily demanding that appropriate steps be taken based on the structural inspection report.
Justice Nargal at the very outset, noted that the petition was not maintainable for multiple reasons amongst them is the dispute is purely a civil in nature and the police have no jurisdiction to intervene in such disputes, including those arising between landlord and tenant. Such matters are within the exclusive cognizance of competent courts and fall outside the scope of criminal law enforcement agencies.
The Court also pointed out a critical procedural flaw in his plea which is that he failed to array the Revenue Authorities as also those shopkeepers (tenants) whose shops as per his contention are in dilapidated condition as party-respondents in his plea, despite seeking relief that would directly affect their (tenants) rights.
The court also took note of the fact with regard to engineering inspection of shops in question by the litigant-Dar and said such engineering report submitted by the petitioner-Dar is of no legal sanctity as it had been procured independently without any mandate from a government agency.
“.. The report submitted by the private Structural Company has been procured by the petitioner on his own without any explicit direction from any Government Agency and the report has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law and cannot be relied upon”, the court remarked.
“The petitioner, in order to evict the tenants from the shops, has applied pressure tactics by filing the said complaint before the SHO concerned… What the petitioner could not achieve directly is being sought to be achieved indirectly by the medium of instant petition, ” The High Court said.
It warned against this misuse of the criminal process and stressed that eviction of tenants is a civil matter requiring an order from a competent court, not an act of executive overreach by the police.
The court has held that a landlord cannot approach the police authority i.e. SHO concerned to directly evict tenants as the eviction is a civil matter that requires an order from the competent court of jurisdiction which has not happened in this case. Concluding that the petition was “misconceived” and “devoid of merit,” Justice Nargal dismissed it stating,
“The petitioner has chosen a novel method of filing the instant petition with a view to oust the tenants from tenancy by applying pressure tactics through the agency of the police and that too without arraying them as party-respondents, which is not permissible under law,” The High Court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
