Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29306
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Devan Ramachandran, JJ
MASSOD P.P – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE – Respondent
WP(C) 24273/2018
['SRI A C DEVY', '', 'SRI A M ABDULLA', 'SMT B BINDU']
The court affirmed the enforceability of eviction orders and the right to police protection against illegal dispossession efforts.
Headnote:
Tenancy - Tenancy Disputes - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Sections 11(3), 11(4)(V) - The court confirmed the legality of the eviction order issued by the Rent Control Court, allowing the petitioner to recover possession through police protection against illegal dispossession attempts by the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of a property previously leased to the 4th respondent. Following eviction orders under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the petitioner sought police protection against the respondent's illegal attempts to regain possession.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to police protection against unlawful attempts by the 4th respondent to reclaim possession of the property after eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the eviction order under the Rent Control Act, recognizing the petitioner's lawful possession and asserting that the 4th respondent should not attempt to reclaim the property through force.
Final Decision: The writ petition is ordered in favor of the petitioner for police protection against illegal actions by the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J:
The disputes relating to tenancy agreement between the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein has now spilled over to this Court in the form of a 'Police Protection matter'.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of a building, bearing Door No.18/1274A of the Kozhikode Corporation and he says that this building was let out to the 4th respondent earlier. According to the petitioner, on the allegation that he was attempting to forcefully dispossess the 4th respondent, the latter filed O.S.No.557 of 2012 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode and obtained Ext.P1 order, wherein the petitioner was directed not to dispossess him except than through a process of law.
3. The petitioner says that he, therefore, filed R.C.P.No.164 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode and obtained Ext.P2 order, whereby the Court ordered eviction of the 4th respondent under Sections 11 (3) and 11(4)(V) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act. The petitioner further says that consequent to Ext.P2 order, he filed E.P.No.244 of 2017 and obtained eviction of the 4th respondent through a Court Amin and that he is in possession of the shop room, consequent to orders of delivery being issued by the said Court.
4. On 14.08.2018, when this matter was considered by us, we directed the petitioner to place on record the documents to show that the building had been delivered to him through the process of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner has, in obedience to those directions, filed I.A.No.1 of 2018 in this writ petition, producing on record the delivery report of the Amin of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the building bearing No.18/1274A has been delivered to him and a list of inventories of the articles in the said shop is also seen appended to the said delivery note.
5. The petitioner, on this basis, alleges that the 4th respondent has no locus to claim possession over the shop room and that her actions in attempting to take its possession through force is illegal and therefore, he is entitled to protection by the police Authorities from such illegal actions of the 4th respondent.
6. We have heard Shri A.C. Devy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dennis Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
7. Shri Dennis Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits in conformity with the averments in the counter affidavit filed on record by the 4th respondent and says that Ext.P2 is an ex- parte order against his clients and that they have therefore, filed Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) petitions before the Rent Control Court to have Ext.P2 order set aside. According to him, the delivery report, viz Ext.P9, does not refer to the shop room claimed by the petitioner but to some other and asserts that his clients are still in possession of this shop room notwithstanding the delivery report filed by the Amin.
8. Shri A.C. Devy, the learned counsel for the petitioner refutes the afore submissions of Shri Dennis Varghese by asserting that it is obvious from Ext.P9 that the shop room in question is building bearing No.18/1274A of the Corporation of Kozhikode and therefore, that there cannot be any dispute or confusion regarding the building that was delivered to him by the Court Amin. He says that all these contentions have been impelled by respondent Nos.4 and 5 with the confutative intention of taking back possession of the shop room through illegal methods using force. He, therefore, reiterates that his client is entitled to be protected by the police officials from such actions of the 4th and 5th respondents and persons acting under them.
9. The learned Sr.Government Pleader, appearing on instructions from respondents 1 to 3, submits that when the police made enquiry, they found that the shop room in question is
