Father Locking Main Gate To Evict Son Without Due Process Of Law Is Mischievous: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has come to the aid of a man who was ousted by his father from their house by installing a padlock on the main gate.

It was argued by the petitioner-father, that the respondent-son had spent 15 years away from the family, and had only returned “to create disturbances” when the petitioner had gifted a large portion of his property to another son.

In recognising that while the petitioner could evict his licensee son through appropriate civil proceedings, a single-bench of Justice Jay Sengupta expressed disagreement with the petitioner’s forceful and unlawful eviction of his son. It held:

Putting a padlock on the main gate of a property is no way to evict a person. An eviction has to be in accordance with law. It is true that a son stays at the father’s property as a licensee. But for evicting him, due process of law has to be taken recourse of. Putting a padlock to prevent a co-resident from entering is nothing but an act of mischief, which should not be encouraged. Therefore, the private respondent shall be at liberty to seek police help to enter into the said house.

These observations came in a writ petition by the petitioner for police protection for him and his family members against the “illegal activities of the respondent” and for quashing for FIR initiated by the respondent against his brother under the POCSO act for allegedly misbehaving with his minor daughter.

Court observed that the respondent had also lodged another case against the petitioner’s daughter-in-law for threatening witnesses under Section 195A of the IPC, and had also attempted to break open the main lock on the petitioners building with the assistance of police.

Respondent's counsel submitted that he had been staying in the house for quite some time, and that one day when he had gone out, the main door of the house was locked by the petitioner, leading to many important documents of the respondent being left in the house.

It was submitted that the respondent was told that the gates would not be opened till he withdrew the POCSO case.

State counsel submitted that local inquiries clarified that the respondent, his wife and minor daughter had been staying in the house, and while the POCSO complaint was being investigated, the petitioner could only evict the respondent after following due process of law.

The Court held that the quashing plea was not maintainable, since the petitioner was not an accused in the POCSO case, and directed the police authorities to keep sharp vigil in the area due to the pending cases between the private parties.

Accordingly, the respondent was directed to be reinstated into the house with is wife and minor daughter, with liberty to the petitioner to initiate eviction proceedings.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 315

Case: Nanda Dulal Bag Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: WPA 23914 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order