The judgment established the tenant's right to continue in possession and restore the building after its partial destruction, as per S.108(e) of the T.P. Act, and emphasized the duty of the State to provide police protection when necessary.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

1. The substantial prayer in this writ petition filed by a residential tenant is for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family for tiling the collapsed roof and repairing two side-walls. Respondents 1 and 2 are the police officers and third respondent is the landlord of the building. Additional fourth respondent is the Accommodation Controller (Tahsildar, Cochin). Even though this is mainly a police protection case, the rights of the parties under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Rent Control Act') and the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the T.P. Act') are coming up for adjudication in this case.

2. The circumstances which compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition can be summarised thus?: The petitioner is residing with his wife and children - five daughters and one son, as a tenant under the third respondent in a tiny line-building obtained on a rental arrangement. The petitioner was paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 10.25 per month. However, the landlord filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Control Court, Cochin on the ground of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner had paid the entire arrears of rent. Thereupon the case was compromised as per a joint statement. Ext. P1 is a copy of the order recording the statement, pursuant to which R.C.A.No.86/87 was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularly paying the rent, but the landlord refrained from issuing receipt for such payments. The landlord did not attend to the periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building for the last so many years. Because of the continued neglect by the landlord to effect the periodical maintenance the building was in a bad shape and condition. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before the Accommodation Controller under S.17(2) of the Rent Control Act seeking a direction to the landlord for maintenance and necessary repairs. While so, on 14-1-1989 at about 5.30 p.m. the roof of the house was collapsed and front door and two windows were damaged. In that unfortunate incident the petitioner's grand daughter got injured. To relieve from the misery caused due to the aforesaid calamity the petitioner rushed to the landlord, who is staying in the neighbourhood requesting him to allow the petitioner to get the collapsed roof and walls repaired, at the cost of the tenant and to restore the building to its original shape. But no permission was granted. On 15-1-1994 the petitioner received a communication from the Accommodation Controller that no order under S.17(2) of the Rent Control Act can be passed on the application filed by the tenant inasmuch as the building was so old which requires re-construction. On 16-1-1994 the petitioner requested the second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, to allow him to repair the collapsed roof of the building. Though the police officers visited the place there was no response in favour of the petitioner. Then he filed Ext. P3 petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Though this petition was forwarded to the police officer for investigation no tangible result was followed there also. The petitioner under this pitiable situation just fastened two or three plastic sheets in the place of collapsed roof of the building. The petitioner and his family members are living in complete misery and destitution. It is in this background the petitioner came before this court with the present writ petition.

3. Inasmuch as the petition filed under S.17(2) of the Rent Control Act before the Accommodation Controller was dismissed on 8-12-1993 the petitioner has sought to quash the said order in the present proceedings. It may be recalled that the said order was passed on a petition filed prior to the incident on 14-1-1994. However, the petitioner tiled C.M.P.No.9487 of 1994 to amend the writ petition seeking t