IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Santhosh Kumar Nair, S/o. Gopalan Nair - Appellant
Versus
Suresh P. Sreedharan, S/o. Sreedharan & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 1133 of 2022
Decided On : 15-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 –Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3), 190 - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11 – Appeal - Empowers all High Courts of India to issue the writs - Cognizance of offences by Magistrates - Eviction of tenants –First Information Report - Whether on such renewal, there is a requirement for a further consent from landlord and if that is not required, tenant may well be attempting to trace his steps back and resume to occupy premises, after having surrendered it; which is plea of appellant-landlord - Court are of opinion that decisions referred impugned order, which restrains jurisdiction under Article 226 for police protection when possession is disputed, are quite relevant to issue under consideration. (Para 9).
Finding of the Court: Court are not impressed by argument that Exts.P5 and P8 complaints were not acted upon by police - FIR registered on Ext.P5 complaint preferred by petitioner/tenant -Once issue at hand is of a civil nature - pure and simple - its nature and character cannot be altered by preferring a complaint before police and alleging inaction on their part, so as to canvass a breach of duty for purpose of issuance of a writ of mandamus - If grievance of petitioner is inaction of police to put criminal law in motion by registering an FIR, on ground of commission of an offence against him by respondent, then his remedy is under Section 156(3) or Section 190 of Cr.P.C -In any event, an alleged trespass cannot be removed with police aid, without recourse to a civil court, especially when there are disputed questions on whether it is a trespass at all.
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
C. Jayachandran, J.
The 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.21186/2022 - petitioner's landlord - is the appellant herein. The judgment in the above writ petition dated 8.8.2022 is impugned in this appeal, which directed the Station House Officer concerned (3rd respondent in the writ petition) to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner as regards his life and property. The judgment also directed the 4th respondent (The Corporation, Thrissur) not to cancel Ext.P2 license for conducting a restaurant, without notice to the petitioner and hearing him.
2. Facts in brief:-
The parties are referred to from their original status in the Writ Petition. The petitioner is conducting a restaurant in building no.39/1687/1 taken on rent from the 5th respondent/landlord. Ext.P1 dated 31.8.2021 is the consent issued by the 5th respondent before the 4th respondent Corporation, enabling the petitioner to conduct the restaurant. The petitioner is possessed of Ext.P2 license issued by the Corporation and Ext.P3 consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The restaurant was inaugurated on 08.05.2022, as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P4(a) photographs. From 05.06.2022 onwards, the petitioner fell sick and could not open the restaurant. During that period, the 5th respondent/landlord trespassed into the tenanted premises on 24.6.2022, opened the same with the duplicate key, removed the furniture, fittings and other valuables therein and destroyed the improvements made in the kitchen. Besides, the petitioner, who went to the premises, upon coming to know about the above high handed activities of the 5th respondent, was assaulted. He preferred Ext.P5 complaint before the 3rd respondent/Inspector of Police. He also preferred Ext.P8 complaint to the District Police Chief. According to the petitioner, he has spent more than Rupees fifty lakhs for the restaurant and he is a lawful tenant and therefore, the 5th respondent/landlord has no authority to enter into the tenanted premises without the junction of the petitioner, much less to remove the valuables therein. On such premise, he seeks issuance of writ of mandamus seeking adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, along with an order directing respondents 2 and 3 to register a criminal case against the 5th respondent, acting upon Exts.P5 and P8 complaints.
3. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations and contending as follows:-
The premises were given on rent as per agreement dated 17.8.2021, but the same was cancelled by the petitioner himself, as he was not in a position to afford payment of rent. Ext.R5(a) is the letter issued by the petitioner/tenant to the Secretary of the 4th respondent Corporation seeking cancellation of license. Accordingly, the 5th respondent got back the possession of the rented premises. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is due from the petitioner towards arrears of rent, in security of which, a few fixtures of the petitioner's hotel is kept with the landlord. The petitioner has no right over the tenanted premises, since he had relinquished his tenancy by cancelling the agreement voluntarily. He is not entitled to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and his remedy lies before the civil court. The 5th respondent lodged a Caveat O.P. before the jurisdictional Munsiff Court, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R5(b). Due to harassment by the police, the 5th respondent was constrained to prefer a complaint before the District Police Chief vide Ext.R5(c). Ext.R5(f) is the FIR registered at the instance of the petitioner/tenant against the 5th respondent/landlord. Ext.R5(g) is another complaint preferred by the 5th respondent before the District Police Chief raising specific allegations against a particular police officer, who allegedly threatened the 5th respondent.
4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order frowned upon Ext.R5(a) letter for cancellation of license and foun
Central Bank of India and Another vs. Beena Thiruvenkitam
K.S. Rashid and son v. The Income Tax Investigation Commission
DLF Housing v. Delhi Municipal Corporation
Union of India v. Ghaus Muhammed
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union
Power under Article 226 of Constitution is discretionary, to be exercised judicially, based on recognized judicial principles.
Point of Law - Where there is flagrant violation of the orders of the execution court and the alternate remedy found to be not efficacious, then police protection could be ordered.
Court does not grant police protection when civil disputes are pending, promoting resolution through competent courts.
Pleadings and particulars are required to enable court to decide rights of parties in trial.
A writ petition for police protection cannot resolve civil disputes and must be adjudicated in competent civil courts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that police protection cannot be extended when rights have not been determined by the civil court, and a writ for police protection has limited app....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.