1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional City Magistrate (I) Bareilly, on an application filed by the respondent-landlord.

3. The contention in the writ petition is that the petitioner is the tenant of shop no.137 Semal Kheda Bareilly, since 17.03.2003 and is regularly paying monthly rent to respondent no.5, who is the owner of the shop in question. An application has been filed by respondent no.5 on 13.10.2011 before the Additional City Magistrate stating therein that the petitioner had illegally occupied the shop and the appurtenant land and threatened her with dire consequences. This application was entertained and a report was called upon by the Additional City Magistrate. As per the report submitted by the Sub Inspector, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, there was some dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.5. and consequently the proceedings under Sections 107 & 116 Cr.P.C. had been initiated to maintain peace and tranquillity.

4. After consideration of this report, the Additional City Magistrate (I) Bareilly, had proceeded with the matter and allowed the application filed by respondent no.5 by an ex-parte order dated 08.12.2011.

5. By means of the said order, the petitioner has been declared unauthorized occupant and was directed to handover the vacant possession of the shop and the appurtenant land to the complainant, respondent no.5. The order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the Additional City Magistrate is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to declare the petitioner an unauthorized occupant. The petitioner is the tenant of the shop in question and the Additional City Magistrate had exceeded in his jurisdiction in passing of order of dispossession from the shop in question. The dispute raised by respondent no.5 is a civil dispute, which ought to have been decided in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act or for eviction of the petitioner, the respondent no.5 could have filed a civil suit.

6. It is, further, demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil suit for injunction has been filed by the petitioner against respondent no.5 in which an interim injunction dated 01.04.2013 has been passed directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property.

7. The order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the Additional City Magistrate (I) Bareilly was also brought before the Civil Court which has been considered while passing the interim injunction order.

8. Be that as it may, the Additional City Magistrate had no jurisdiction to enter into the dispute which is in the nature of a civil dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. She had no jurisdiction to declare the petitioner an unauthorized occupant and, further, no direction could be given to vacate the shop in question. The order dated 08.12.2011 is wholly without jurisdiction.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents though tried to defend but he could not give an appropriate answer to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. In this view of the matter, the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the Additional City Magistrate cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition is allowed.

12. However, respondent no.5 may initiate proceedings against the petitioner as is available to him under law.