Due process in eviction of sealed premises protects lawful tenants from direct handover to the landlord without rent-law remedies.

Lawful tenants of sealed premises were entitled to unsealing and release where they were not shown as accused, the police report stated they had no role in the offence, and the premises had been given to the accused company only on an ex-gratis basis. Handing the property directly to the landlord's successor without recourse to rent law and the ordinary eviction process would have amounted to dispossession without due process. Completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet further supported release of the premises. The refusal to unseal and release the premises was therefore unsustainable, and the premises were directed to be unsealed and handed over to the tenants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants, being lawful tenants of the sealed premises, were entitled to unsealing and release of the premises, and whether the premises could be handed over to the landlord without following due process of law.

Analysis: The premises had been sealed during investigation in a crime in which the appellants were not shown to be accused. The later police report stated that the appellants had no role in the offence and that the premises had been given to the accused company only on an ex-gratis basis. In these circumstances, direct handing over of the premises to the landlord's successor would have resulted in dispossession of the tenants without recourse to the rent law and the ordinary process required for eviction. The subsequent completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet also supported release of the premises.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to relief. The order refusing unsealing and release of the premises was unsustainable, and the premises were directed to be unsealed and handed over to the appellants.

---