Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2042
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.BASANT, K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ
PEEYUS AKKARAPPATTI – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 12638/2011
Judicial protection is essential to prevent unlawful eviction of tenants, especially amidst ongoing disputes over property rights.
Headnote:
Protection - Tenancy - Interim Order - The court emphasized the importance of police protection for tenants against illegal eviction attempts, reaffirming the obligations of the parties under ongoing civil proceedings and the need for lawful conduct.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, heirs of a deceased tenant, faced illegal eviction attempts by the 3rd respondent, an assignee of the deceased landlord's rights, despite ongoing civil court litigation regarding these rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite the 3rd respondent's assurances to the civil court, attempts to forcibly evict the petitioners were occurring, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure lawful conduct.
Issues: Whether the court should grant police protection to the petitioners against illegal eviction attempts in light of ongoing litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interim orders providing protection were necessary to maintain the status quo and prevent unlawful eviction while the civil court proceedings were ongoing.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed with police protection ordered for the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioners are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant.
The 3rd respondent herein is the assignee of rights of some of the legal heirs of the deceased landlord. The 3rd respondent has a case that he has now purchased the entire rights of the deceased landlord from his legal heirs.
2. Be that as it may, there are disputes between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. Parties are already before the civil court. The 3rd respondent has filed a suit for enforcing his rights to repair the building. The petitioners have approached the civil court with a suit against forcible eviction. The 3rd respondent had undertaken before the civil court that no attempt shall be made to forcibly evict the petitioners.
3. The present grievance of the petitioners is that contrary to the undertaking before the civil court, illegal attempts are being made to physically throw out the petitioners. It is prayed that police protection may be ordered.
4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent undertakes that no attempt shall be made by the 3rd respondent to physically throw the petitioners out of possession. He shall abide by the orders of the civil court. The 3rd respondent denies all allegations that are raised against him.
5. We note that the Vacation Court which admitted the matter had passed an interim order granting protection to the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 were directed:
“to afford adequate, effective and meaningful police protection to the petitioners to carry on the business in the room bearing No.10/307 of Thrissur Corporation without any illegal obstruction from the 3rd respondent.”
6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent, though he emphatically denies the allegations, has no intention to indulge in any culpable acts as apprehended by the petitioners. In these circumstances, the 3rd respondent has no objection in the interim order being made absolute without prejudice to the contentions of the 3rd respondent before the civil court.
7. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the interim order dated 26/4/2011 extracted above can be made absolute.
8. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The interim order extracted above is made absolute.
Sd/-
R. BASANT (Judge)
