Court Affirms Revisional Court's Decision, Denies Eviction Proceedings Against Tenant Under BNSS
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has upheld the decision of a Revisional Court, which set aside a City Magistrate's order concerning the attachment of a disputed property in Gonda. This case, titled "Indu Tandon v. State of U.P.," revolved around a contested possession issue between Indu Tandon, an elderly widow, and the tenant of her property, which houses a jewelry shop.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Brij Raj Singh, emphasized that proceedings under Sections 164 and 165 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) are permissible only when there is a genuine dispute over the actual possession of immovable property that could lead to a breach of peace. The Court highlighted that the mere existence of civil suits or other possession-related proceedings does not prevent the initiation of BNSS proceedings if the Magistrate believes there is a potential threat to peace.
This case arose when Indu Tandon alleged that the tenant, in possession of a shop on her property, was illegally attempting to encroach further. The City Magistrate, having reviewed the situation and police reports indicating potential tension, ordered the attachment of the property. However, the Revisional Court overturned this order, asserting that the tenant's possession was established and eviction should proceed through legal channels, not through BNSS proceedings.
The High Court's judgment reaffirmed the Revisional Court's stance, stating that the attachment of the property was unwarranted as the tenant's possession was not disputed. The Court underscored the principle that Magistrates should prioritize maintaining public peace and not delve into adjudicating property rights, which are typically within the purview of civil courts.
The judgment also drew upon several precedents, including the Supreme Court's guidance that BNSS proceedings are meant to preserve peace rather than resolve possession disputes. Justice Singh cited previous rulings, such as "Mahabirji Mandir Committee v. State of U.P." and "Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P.," to support the decision that actual possession should not be disturbed through BNSS unless legally justified.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the application by Indu Tandon, thereby validating the tenant's right to remain in possession of the shop until any eviction is legally ordered. The Court's decision reinforces the notion that BNSS proceedings should not be misused for possession disputes unless there is a clear and imminent threat to public peace.
Bottom Line:
Proceedings under Sections 164/165 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (akin to Sections 145/146 CrPC) can only be initiated when there is a dispute regarding actual possession of immovable property likely to lead to breach of peace. Mere pendency of civil suits or other proceedings related to possession does not bar such proceedings if the Magistrate is satisfied that a peace breach is apprehended.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 164, 165
Indu Tandon v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878597
