Sec.18 of Immoral Traffic Act - RDO has no power to attach directly - Lodged was raided for running brothel business - RDO/Executive magistrate issued show cause notice and attached the Lodged and directed to close the 2nd ,3rd floors - High court held that Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to attach the Lodge and direct to close the 2nd and 3 rd floors as per sec.18 - it empowers only to evict the brothels and it restrict to give lease/rent to others with out permission of magistrate with in one year - he can not attach the Lodge directly - their lordships of high court set aside the orders of Executive Magistrate and allowed the writ = M.Ramakrishna S/o Venkattappaiah....petitioner The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and RDO, Vijayawada and another.... Respondents =2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10872

Sec.18 of Immoral Traffic Act - RDO has no power to attach directly - Lodged was raided for running brothel business - RDO/Executive magistrate issued show cause notice and attached the Lodged and directed to close the 2nd ,3rd floors - High court held that Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to attach the Lodge and direct to close the 2nd and 3 rd floors as per sec.18 - it empowers only to evict the brothels and it restrict to give lease/rent to others with out permission of magistrate with in one year - he can not attach the Lodge directly - their lordships of high court set aside the orders of Executive Magistrate and allowed the writ =

Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 reads as follows:-
"18. Closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises.---
(1) A magistrate may, on receipt of information from the police or otherwise,
that any house, room, place or any portion thereof within a distance of two
hundred meters of any public place referred to in sub-section(1) of section 7,
is being run or used as a brothel by any person or is being used by prostitutes
for carrying on their trade, issue notice on the owner, lessor or landlord of
such house, room, place or portion or the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord
or on the tenant, lessee, occupier of, or any other person incharge of such
house, room, place or portion to show cause within seven days of the receipt of
the notice why the same should not be attached for improper user thereof; and
if, after hearing the person concerned, the magistrate is satisfied that the
house, room, place or portion is being used as a brothel or for carrying on
prostitution, then the magistrate may pass orders-
(a) directing eviction of the occupier within seven days of the passing of the
order from the house, room, place or portion;
(b) directing that before letting it out during the period of one year or in a
case where child or minor has been found in such house, room, place or portion
during a search under section 15, during the period of three years, immediately
after the passing of the order, the owner, lessor or landlord or the agent of
the owner, lessor or landlord shall obtain the previous approval of the
magistrate.
Provided that, if the magistrate finds that the owner, lessor or landlord as
well as the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord, was innocent of the improper
user of the house, room, place or portion, he may cause the same to be restored
to the owner, lessor or landlord, or the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord
with a direction that the house, room place or portion shall not be leased out,
or otherwise given possession of, to or for the benefit of the person who was
allowing the improper use therein.

08.     A perusal of the above Section clearly shows that the Magistrate on
receipt of information from the police or otherwise that a house is being run as
a brothel, after issuance of notice to the owner or lessor, he may pass orders
directing eviction of the occupier of house and directing before letting it out
during the period of one year immediately after the passing of the order, the
lessor or the landlord should obtain the previous approval of the Magistrate.
09.     Though the Section provides for issuance of a notice of attachment for
improper use of the premises, the Magistrate was not given any power for
attachment of the premises directly. In the instant case, the 1st Respondent
ordered closure of the 2nd and 3rd floors of the lodge with
immediate effect.

10.     In view of the Section 18(1) of the Act, the order passed by the 1st
Respondent is illegal and is set aside. However, this order has no bearing on
the pending proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2011, which are independent
proceedings.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10872

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO            

W.P.No.15623 OF 2010

05-02-2014

M.Ramakrishna S/o Venkattappaiah....petitioner

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and RDO, Vijayawada and another.... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Gangarami Reddy

Counsel  for the Respondents:  G.P for Home & Revenue


<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO          

W.P.NO.15623 OF 2010  
ORDER:-

The writ petitioner is a Managing Partner of a lodge situated at Kodad Road,
Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. The               2nd respondent-Inspector of
Police, Jaggaiahpet Circle along with mediators raided the said lodge on 03-05-
2010 at 13.00 Hours and registered Cr.No.50 of 2010 for an offence under
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ( for short
"the Act") against the petitioner and five others. Based on the information
furnished by the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent issued a notice dated 02-06-2010
under Section 18(1) of the Act calling for explanation of the petitioner as to
why the lodge should not be attached on the ground that it was used as a brothel
house. The petitioner submitted his explanation on                      08-06-
2010. It is stated that the 1st respondent without considering the explanation,
passed the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A1/2133/2010, dated 29-06-2010.

02.     The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that on information
regarding the maintenance of lodge as a brother house, he raided on 03-05-2010
along with staff and mediators and caught hold of the room boy and on his
confession raided Room No.111 and found two male and one female and recorded
their confessional statements before the mediators. Three persons were arrested
and in their statements they stated that the petitioner being the owner of the
lodge knew about the brothel house is being run in the said lodge. Cr.No.50 of
2010 was booked under Sections 3 to 5 of the Act against the petitioner and five
others. On 07-05-2010 he filed a petition before the 1st respondent to seize the
said lodge and on 02-06-2010 the 1st respondent issued a notice to the
petitioner asking to submit his explanation as to why the said lodge should not
be attached. The petitioner received the said notice and submitted his
explanation on 08-06-2010. After considering the explanation the impugned orders
were passed.

03.     Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the 2nd Respondent.

04.     The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that under Section 18(1) of
the Act, the 1st Respondent has power to pass the order of eviction of the
occupier, within seven days of the passing of the order, from the premises. If
the owner wants to let out during the period of one year, the owner has to
obtain previous approval of the Magistrate. But the impugned order was passed
directing closure of 2nd and 3rd floors with immediate effect and the same is
contrary to the provisions of the Act. It was further stated that there was no
allegation what-so-ever either in the First Information Report or in the
mediators' report to show that the owners are running the brothel house and they
are aware of the same.

05.     The learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions states that case
was registered as C.C.No.174 of 2011 and it was posted for hearing on 19-12-
2013.

06.     The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows:-
        "The explanation given by the individual is not correct and his version
that the hotel is being run by employees' shows his irresponsibility and his
explanation that the entire happenings in the hotel. If any will not come to his
notice is not convincing and beyond reason.

        The records of the complainant i.e., Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpeta
were also perused. As seen from the copy of the Register of Hotel Indu, the room
No.111 was booked on the name of Sri N.Veera Sankar S/o Veerabhadra Rao. In the
mediators report, it was clearly stated by the room boy Sri Pattipati Ramesh S/o
Late Yesaiah, that prostitution is being carried out in the hotel and the owners
of the hotel also aware of the matter. Sampath Gopi S/o Ramaiah and N.Veera
Sankar have stated that they have taken room No.111 for rent on 3-5-10 by paying
advance of Rs.1000/- and booked one lady by name Munisha for prostitution.

        Hence satisfied with the information laid by the Inspector of Police,
Jaggaiahpeta and the material available on record,              I, Sri K.Dharma
Reddy, Sub Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada hereby
order to closure the 2nd and 3rd floors of Hotel Indu, Jaggaiahpeta U/s.18(1) of
the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act,1956, which is being used for carrying
prostitution with immediate effect.


07.     Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 reads as follows:-
"18. Closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises.---
(1) A magistrate may, on receipt of information from the police or otherwise,
that any house, room, place or any portion thereof within a distance of two
hundred meters of any public place referred to in sub-section(1) of section 7,
is being run or used as a brothel by any person or is being used by prostitutes
for carrying on their trade, issue notice on the owner, lessor or landlord of
such house, room, place or portion or the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord
or on the tenant, lessee, occupier of, or any other person incharge of such
house, room, place or portion to show cause within seven days of the receipt of
the notice why the same should not be attached for improper user thereof; and
if, after hearing the person concerned, the magistrate is satisfied that the
house, room, place or portion is being used as a brothel or for carrying on
prostitution, then the magistrate may pass orders-
(a) directing eviction of the occupier within seven days of the passing of the
order from the house, room, place or portion;
(b) directing that before letting it out during the period of one year or in a
case where child or minor has been found in such house, room, place or portion
during a search under section 15, during the period of three years, immediately
after the passing of the order, the owner, lessor or landlord or the agent of
the owner, lessor or landlord shall obtain the previous approval of the
magistrate.
Provided that, if the magistrate finds that the owner, lessor or landlord as
well as the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord, was innocent of the improper
user of the house, room, place or portion, he may cause the same to be restored
to the owner, lessor or landlord, or the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord
with a direction that the house, room place or portion shall not be leased out,
or otherwise given possession of, to or for the benefit of the person who was
allowing the improper use therein.

08.     A perusal of the above Section clearly shows that the Magistrate on
receipt of information from the police or otherwise that a house is being run as
a brothel, after issuance of notice to the owner or lessor, he may pass orders
directing eviction of the occupier of house and directing before letting it out
during the period of one year immediately after the passing of the order, the
lessor or the landlord should obtain the previous approval of the Magistrate.
09.     Though the Section provides for issuance of a notice of attachment for
improper use of the premises, the Magistrate was not given any power for
attachment of the premises directly. In the instant case, the 1st Respondent
ordered closure of the                     2nd and 3rd floors of the lodge with
immediate effect.

10.     In view of the Section 18(1) of the Act, the order passed by the 1st
Respondent is illegal and is set aside. However, this order has no bearing on
the pending proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2011, which are independent
proceedings.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
________________________  
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J      
05-02-2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.