[dumbo/PI] dispossession

by Guest Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:40 am

re: our chat last night on the above subject

you are very argumentative but luckily only sometimes you are right. ok, jokes apart, this is my understanding of the law (in india):

dispossession is a civil offense if done peacefully (no breach of peace or violence). this is what happened in your acquaintance's instant case. the police will normally not interfere in civil matters unless you have a clear right to title and the OP has no title whatsoever. if your title is clear and the OP has no title then the police is bound to observe law and order by helping you evict the trespasser. if the OP has any claim whatsoever to the property then the police will advise you, a) to approach the court and get an eviction order, or, b) reclaim your possession peacefully. your acquaintance took the latter advice and succeeded. the police acted in accordance to their duties -- prima facie it appears to me that they did not slack in this case. the police will normally not intervene if the matter is civil in nature (dispossession without breach of peace is civil in nature) for they are not empowered to act (without a court order or clear right to title with no challenge to it).

feel free to punctuate this thread with your comments but this is what i had wanted to say.

case in point: i had forcibly evicted a tenant last year. he got no succor from the police. finally he lodged a dacoity case against me (alleging i had stolen his valuable property during eviction). the case now took a criminal angle; the police swung into action and slapped non-bailable sections on me. i had to use political help to make him withdraw the baseless complaint.

by Guest Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:52 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
case in point: i had forcibly evicted a tenant last year.

he was not exactly a "tenant" for tenants get immediate protection from the courts and it is impossible to evict them. he was a tenant in the guise of a "paying guest."

by Obnoxious Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:42 pm

Dude, the person who occupied the house is not a tenant and never had been. They just saw a house that was locked in a prime location & broke in & stayed. That IS a criminal act. The house was owned by mom's friend & they have a title.

You pay attention & try to understand what others say.

by Guest Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:01 pm

Appalamma wrote:Dude, the person who occupied the house is not a tenant and never had been. They just saw a house that was locked in a prime location & broke in & stayed. That IS a criminal act. The house was owned by mom's friend & they have a title.

You pay attention & try to understand what others say.

i have nowhere denied,

a) the person who occupied the house was not a tenant and never had been;
b) they (trespassers) just saw a house that was locked in a prime location & broke in & stayed;
c) the house was owned by your mom's friend & that they have a title.

please pay attention to what i have said in my post above. please also tell me if the OP had any claim to the title (you might not know that but it is inconsequential to our main argument). if the OP hadn't then there was too much noise over nothing in chat last night -- to be honest.

by Guest Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:06 pm

i think i have understood. sitting in the US you heard this story from your mom about how the CM's son-in-law had broken into the house of her friend. the police, mom said (as her friend had said), did not help. the friend used political help (as mom said, as the friend had bragged) to get possession back. you were flabbergasted by the story -- you had just witnessed titanic breaking into two. ok dude, EOD time.

by Sponsored content

[dumbo/PI] dispossession

[dumbo/PI] dispossession

Re: [dumbo/PI] dispossession

Re: [dumbo/PI] dispossession

Re: [dumbo/PI] dispossession

Re: [dumbo/PI] dispossession

Re: [dumbo/PI] dispossession