Court does not grant police protection when civil disputes are pending, promoting resolution through competent courts.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks a direction for the grant of adequate protection to the life of the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he is conducting a business by name ‘VTS Developers’ and earns his livelihood from the said business. Petitioner alleges that the 5^th respondent is the landlord of a residential building wherein petitioner was inducted as a tenant. It is also alleged that in the year 2020, an advertisement was published by respondents 5 and 6 proposing to sell their residential property situated in Survey Nos.205/10C, 205/10A and 205/10B of Pathanamthitta village, having an extent of 14.51 Ares along with the building No.XII/447 situated therein. Pursuant to the said advertisement negotiations were conducted, and an agreement for sale, as Ext.P1, was entered into with the 9th respondent. Petitioner contends that the total sale consideration fixed therein was Rs.1,85,00,000/- and by Exhibit.P2, petitioner advanced an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the 5th respondent on behalf of the 9^th respondent. According to the petitioner, the 7^th respondent, who is the brother of the 6^th respondent, i.e., the husband of the 5^th respondent, inducted him as a tenant on the basis of an oral contract, and thereafter he has been residing in the said building. Petitioner contends that the 7^th respondent acted pursuant to the consent of respondents 5 and 6. According to the petitioner, on 08.11.2023, when he went to visit his relatives, respondents 5 and 6, acting out of vengeance, trespassed into the house, destroyed the vehicles and other articles kept therein, and committed serious acts of vandalism. Thereafter, a complaint was filed on 04.06.2024 before the 3^rd respondent, pointing out the illegalities committed by respondents 5 and 6.

3. Petitioner also contends that he has initiated a civil suit as O.S. No.60/2024 before the Munsiff’s Court, Pathanamthitta, seeking an injunction against forcible dispossession, and that an Advocate Commissioner was taken out, who has filed Exhibit-P8 report, wherein the illegal acts committed by respondents 5 and 6 have been specifically mentioned. According to the petitioner, in view of the threats to his life and other acts of vandalism perpetrated by the respondents, he ought to be provided protection for his life by an order of police protection by this Court.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5, 6 and 8, wherein they have denied any tenancy arrangement between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. According to them, though an agreement for sale was entered into as Ext.P1 between the 9^th respondent and the 5^th respondent on 19.10.2020, the sale deed was not executed as due to the failure of the 9^th respondent to pay the balance sale consideration. It is also pleaded that a suit, O.S. No.44/2023 was filed by the 5^th respondent before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the 9^th respondent herein to accept the refund of the advance amount and relieve the 5^th respondent of the obligations under the agreement. According to respondents 5 and 6, though a suit was filed by the 5^th respondent on 27.06.2023, the 9^th respondent has caused the petitioner to file a suit on 30.02.2024 in connection with an alleged incident that occurred on 08.11.2023, and an exparte Advocate Commission was issued by the Court. It was also pointed out that, despite the above, the civil court had not granted any injunction against forcible dispossession.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 9^th respondent, wherein it is stated that respondents 5 and 6, after accepting substantial amounts from the writ petitioner, changed their stance and sought to resile from the agreement, resulting in mu