A tenant can only be evicted in accordance with the law, and police protection may be warranted against unlawful eviction threats.

J U D G M E N T

K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i) to issue a writ of mandamus or writ order or direction compelling respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection for the petitioner and his men to carry on the work of Dental Speciality Hospital in the present premises.

ii) To issue adequate police protection for the ingress and aggress of the petitioner and his men to the Poly Dental Super Specialty at Kottayam and for their life and property.

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner is conducting a Dental Super Specialty center at Kottayam in the 4th respondent's building from 1987. Most modern machineries, generators and other equipments were installed spending many lakhs of Rupees. There is a proposal to start a hospital by the 4th respondent; but that did not W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010 2 succeed. Respondents 4 and 5 attempted to evict the petitioner by using goondas and criminals. The petitioner filed O.S.No.308/2008. The 4th respondent filed a statement that he has no intention to forcibly evict the petitioner. Thereafter, it is stated that, on the instigation of respondents 4 and 5, the 6th respondent, a known goonda, who was in detention under the Goonda Act, threatened the petitioner and attempted to take forcible steps with the help of the 7th respondent. There are further allegations and the petitioner, apprehending inaction, has come before us.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 7. The learned counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 7 would submit that there is no such move to evict the petitioner by force and the 5th respondent was in fact out of station till 13/12/2010. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered into a sale agreement and it is stated that there is no move to cause any forcible eviction of the petitioner.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant.

Therefore, the petitioner can be evicted only as per law. If, contrary to the submissions made by respondents 4 and 5, the W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010 3 petitioner is constrained to complain before the 3rd respondent of any attempts to forcibly evict the petitioner or prevent the ingress and aggress of the petitioner and his men to the Poly Dental Super Specialty at Kottayam, the 3rd respondent shall look into it and if the complaint is found to be genuine, he shall provide protection to the petitioner for doing his business in the tenanted premises in accordance with law as against the party respondents.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

.No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT

30/082010