Thursday, Apr 25, 2024 | Last Update : 08:09 PM IST
No relief for three 70-year-olds in forceable entry, theft case
The landlords had broken into the property on the grounds that it was lying shut for eight years.
Mumbai: Observing that landlords have found a new way to take forceful possession of properties, the Bombay high court refused anticipatory bail to three septuagenarians and the son of one of them after they forcefully broke into the premise of a tenant and took possession of the property.
The quartet had sought anticipatory bail as the tenant lodged a complaint against them with the Mahim police for forceful entry and stealing valuables worth Rs 5 lakh that was within the premise.
The landlords had broken into the property on the grounds that it was lying shut for eight years. The property in question is a shop in Mahim which was in possession of the complainants’ father since 1934. The bench of Justice A.M. Badar was hearing the anticipatory bail application of Allarakha Jodhatar (77), Mohammad Jodhatar (73), Abdul Aziz Jodhatar (69) and Abdul Razzak Jodhatar (41) against whom the Mahim police had registered cases under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to housebreaking, trespass and theft for breaking into and taking forceful possession of a shop that was in possession of Hussain Satopay, a subtenant since 1934.
The complaint was lodged by Satopay’s daughter Rehana who was in possession of the shop after the death of her father and elder brother since 2005. Satopay had taken the shop on rent from the original tenant Chandrabhaga Balu in 1934.
While arguing for the ABA, advocate Rizwan Merchant appearing on behalf of the four accused informed the court that they were landlords of the said shop. He added that they had followed due process of law by sending notices to the tenant (Balu) which were returned undelivered, advertised in the newspaper and informed the local police of their action of breaking the lock on the shutter and taking possession of the shop. However, advocate Ashraf Ahmed Shaikh appearing on behalf of Rehana argued that the electricity bills, shop licence and bills of other amenities were in the name of Satopay and also produced electricity bills paid up to May 2017.
