Raavi Satish Kumar v. 1. State of Telangana'

Petition Under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith unseal the premises bearing H No 4- 92' opposite LIC office, Janmabhunningar' Ir/lancherial' It/lancherial District by suspending the orders passed by the Respondent No 2 dated 24- 10.2024 vide ProcNo.ClSo5gl2o24issuedU/s1B(1)(a)oflmmoralTrafficPreventionAct' 1956, pending disposal of the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KISHORE BALDWA Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1' 2 & 4 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No'3 : AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER ? I t , ,') HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.20880 0F 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. Kishore Baldwa, learned counsel for the petitioner and leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home and also leamed Assistant Govcmment Pleader lor Revenue.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings No.C/8059/2024, dated 24.10.2024 issued by respondent No'2

3. 1'he petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner of house bearing No.4-92, situated opposite LIC Office, Janmabhumi Nagar, Mancherial, hereinafter referred to as 'subject house'. It was let out to one Mr. Ramoju Karunakar, by way of executing a lease deed dated 01.06.2024 for the purpose of running a lodge and guest house. fhe lease is for a period of two (02) years' ln the said lease deed, there is a specific mention that Lessee cannot usc the subject house for unlawful activity'

4. It is further contended that a case in Crime No'538 of 2024 was registered against the said lessee and other accused by Mancherial Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections - 143 2 Kt-, J WP No 20880 of2025 ( 1) (d) and 143 ( 1 ) (0 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections - 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (lor short'ITP Act'). Lessee is arraigned as accused No 8' The allegation levetled against them in the said complaint dated

21.08.2024 of Manchcrial Town Police Station is that the accused are using the subject house as a brothel house.

5. On complction of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against thc accused therein and the same was takcn on file as C.C. No.496 of 2024 against the lessee of the subject house and others for the aforesaid offences.

6. While the matter stood thus. respondent No 2 has issued a show-cause notice dated lO.lO.2024 directing the petitioner herein 1o submit explanation. He has submitted explanation dated 15 '10 2024 by duly enclosing a copy ofthe said lease deed infonning respondent No.2 that he has let out the subject house to accused No.S and there is a specific clause in the said lease dced that lessee cannot use the subject house for any unlawful activity. It is further stated that on coming to know about the said illegal activities, the petitioner has already terminated the said lease in terms of the said lease deed' 1 3 Kl-. J wP No.20880 of2025 Without considering the said aspects, vlde impugned proceedings daled 24.10.2024, respondent No.2 seized the subject house in terms of Section - 18 (1) (a) of ITP Act. Challenging the said order, the petitioncr filed the present writ petition contendirig that respondent No.2 has no power to seize the subject house in terms of Section - 18 (1) (a) of ITP Act and he has not assigned any reasons in the impugned order while seizing the subject house.

7. Whereas, learned Assistant Govemment Pleaders for Revenue and Home, on instructions, would submit that the accused in the said crime used the subject house as brothel house, which is in violation of the ITP Act. Therefore, the subject house was seized by respondent No.2 by following the procedure laid down under Section - 18 (l) (a) of the ITP Act. There is no irregularity in it.

8. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that Section - 18 of the ITP Act dcals with 'closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises' and the same is extracted as under: "18. Closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises. {l) A magistrate may, on a 4 KI,, J WP No 20880 o42025 receipt of information tiom the police or otherwise, that any house, room, place or any portion thereof within a distance of two hundred metres 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 thc 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 ltrr carrying on prostirution. thcn the magistrate may pass orders- (a) directing eviction of the occupier within seven days of the passing of the order lrom the house. room. placc or portion; (b) directing that before letting it out during the period ofone year or in a case where a 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 -) 5 KL, J WP No.208E0 of2025 owner, lessor or landlord shall obtain the previous approval of the magistrate: Provided that, if the magistrate hnds 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, Iessor or landlord, with a direction that the house, room, place or po(ion shall not be leascd out, or otherwise given possession of, to or for the benefit of the person who was allowing the improper user therein. (2) A court convicting a person of any offence under scction 3 or section 7 may pass order utder subsection (1) without further notice to such person to show cause as required in that sub-section. (3) Orders passed by the magistrate or court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be subject to appeal and sha[[ not be stayed or set aside by the order of any court, civil or criminal and the said orders shall cease to have validity after the expiry of one year or three years, as the case may be: Provided that where a conviction under section 3 or section 7 is set aside on appeal on the ground that such house, room, place or any portion thereof is not being run or used as a brothel or is not being used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade, any order 6 KL, J WP No 20880 of2025 passed by the trial court under sub-section (1) shall also be set aside. (4) Norwithstanding anyhing containcd in an1 other law for the time being in force, when a magistrate passes an order under sub-section (1), or a court passes an order under sub-section (2), any lcase or agreement under which the house, room, place or po(ion is occupied at thc time, shall become void and inoperative. (5) When an owner, lessor or landlord, or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord fails to comply with a direction given under clause (b) of sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with fine which may extcnd to five hundred rupees or when he fails to comply rvith a direction under the proviso to that subsection, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence urder clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 3 or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 7, as the case may be, and punished accordingly."

9. There is no dispute that a case in Crime No.538 o12024 was registered by Mancherial Town Police Station against the lessee of the subject house on the complaint dated 21.08.2024 of the Sub-Inspectoi of Police, Mancherial Town Police Station alleging that the accused used the subject house for illegal activities. There is also no dispute ) 7 KL, J \lrP No 20880 of2025 that the Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation' laid charge sheet against the accused therein including the lessee' The same was taken on file vide C.C. No.496 of 2024 for the aforesaid offences.

10. Respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice dated

10.10.2024 show causing the petitioner herein as to why the subj ect house shall not be attached for improper use of the same' Seven (07) days time was grante<l to the petitioner. He has submitted explanation dated 15.10.2024. Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 hotding that Mr. Drakshapalli Venkata Narayana' Power of Attomey Holder of the petitioner/Care Taker of the subject house failed to stop the iltegal activities which were done by the accused in the subject house. Therefore, it shows the negligence of the petitioner and his Power of Attomey Holder' The explanation submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory. Therefore, invoking the power under Section - t8 (1) (a) of the ITP Act, respondent No'2 seized the subject house. Vide imptgned order dated 24'10'2024' respondent No.2 directed respondent No.4 to seize the subject house' In the impugned order, it is also stated by respondent No 2 that 8 KI,, J W? No 20880 of20li respondent No.4 has to seize the subject house within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of copy of said order, otherwise show-cause why the said order should not bc made absolute in order to remove the public nuisance in the interest of public and justice.

11. It is the specific contention of leamed counscl for thi: petilioner that respondent No.2 cannot seize the subjcct house in terrns of Section - 18 (1) (a) of the ITP Act, at the most. he can close the properly and evict the offenders from the subject housc.

12. There is no definition of offenders in the ITp Act. Admittedly, the offenders in the aforesaid crime arc labourers of the Iessee and the lessee ofthe subject house. According to the petitioner, he has already terminated the aforesaid lease and evicted the lessee. There is no definition of 'seizure' in the ITP Act. Therefbre, in terms of Section - 18 (1) (a) of the ITP Act, respondent No.2, at the most. can close the subject house and evict the offenders on the ground that it was used for brothel house.

13. As per Section - 18 (1) (a) of the ITp Acr, respondenr No.2 has power to direct eviction of the occupier within seven (07) days of 9 KL, J WP No 20880 of2025 the passing of the order from the house, room, place or portion. He has power to direct owner of the property before letting it out during the period of one (01) year or in a case where a child or minor has been found in such house, room, place or portioh during a search under Section - 15, during the period of three (03) 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.

14. Respondent No.2 has to satisff himself with regard to using of the subject house for brothel house. Thereafter, he can order for eviction of the offenders. He has to assign specific reasons. In the present case, respondent No.2 did not consider the said aspects more particularly that he does not have power to seize the subject house and also the explanation dated 15. 10.2024 submiued by the petitioner stating that he has already terminated the lease and evicted the offenders. There is no consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner that in the lease deed there is specific clause that lessee shall not use the subject house for illegal activities. i I i l0 KI,. J wP No 20880 of2025

15. In Motumarri Ramakrishna v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Yijayawada, Krishna Districtr relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioncr, the Magistrate aftached the property directly without issuing notice to thc owncr of the property. Therefore, the High Court of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad held that the same is in violation of the procedure lai<l down under Section - 18 (l) of the ITP Act. Whereas, in the present case, respondent No.2 has issued notice, but he has not considered the explanation dated 15.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner and the contents therein. Respondent No.2 has no power to seize the property. Thus, the said aspects were not considered by respondent No.2 in the impugned order dated 24.10.2024. Therefore the same is liablc to bc set aside on the said ground alone.

16. The impugned order dated 24.10.2024 of respon<Ient No.2 in Proc.No.C/8059/2024 is accordingly set aside. However, rhe petitioner shall not use the subject house for any illegal activities including brothel house. If he wants to let out the subject house, he has to take care of the same, see that it will not be used for any iltegal *':-roto i:'1 nlo zl: KL, J wP No.206E0 of2025 activities. Mere mentioning of clause in the lease deed that lessee :,hall not use the subject house for unlawful activities, is not sufficient. 'lhe petitioner being owner of the subject house has to oversee that the lessee is using the subject house for the purpose for which it was let out. In the present case, the subject house was let out for the purpose of running a lodge and guest house. Therefore, lessee has to conduct only legal activities in the subject house, he cannot conduct illegal activities. However, it is the duty of the petitioner, being owner of the subject house, to see that lessee shall not conduct any illegal activities in the subject house. 17 . With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition Chqll clard slssed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR (w SEC TTON OFFIGER Department' Secretariat Building' State of )ivisional officer, Mancherial' ,. tn" Principal Secretary' ,Revenue ' iLLngjni' at Hyderahad' ,. fi ;'d"u;lbi';isi6nal Magistrate- cum-Revenue L .y#si8:'*'i;[ii'1l*'#j.,[f,tffi 4 The Executive Magt: i- two CCs to GP FOf ^ +It%t3f" 8"Xo* HoME' Hish court ror the state or relansana at , gl:"tttS rtR'''l[no*t BALDwA' Advocate toPUCl B. Two CD CoPies lffi*ffi [ift ,,**irT]ta:?r:i". I t WSA BS l. ,t ( 1HE SI4 o11 .:) c 1l -/' 1t tlJE ztul !) Fs.7, o (( ( z I ) -). HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 ORDER WP.No.20880 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W,P WITHOUT COSTS. taa€P(eA E -.----1'-1- , 1A\ER5 I I I i t