Jamal M Sainulabdeen vs The State Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 20849 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
           JAMAL M SAINULABDEEN,
           S/O. JAMAL, MUHAMMED, T C NO. 8/1502(1) S S VILLA
           THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA 695 006.

          BY ADVS.
          THOMAS ABRAHAM
          PAUL BABY
          MERCIAMMA MATHEW
          ASWIN.P.JOHN
          R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
          THAYYIB SHA P.S.


RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
           KERALA STATE , POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010.

    2     CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

    3     CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

    4     BASHEER KHAN,
          S/O. SAFARULLAH , RESIDING AT T.C. 41/974(3) YAHIYA
          MANZIL, PARUTHIKUZHY, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
          026.

          BY ADVS.
          ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
          I.ARIF MUHAMMAD


          SRI E C BINEESH - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021
                                    2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of a building

containing multiple door numbers at Attakulangara and he says

that, through Ext.P6 Lease Agreement, he had put the 4 th

respondent in possession of two of them, namely bearing

No.T.C.No.39/2025(1) and T.C.No.39/2025(2) - which takes in

the ground floor of the said building - for the purpose of running

his business.

2. The petitioner asserts that the respondent has,

however, now illegally taken possession and control of the whole

building - which contains two floors over the ground floor - as

also the staircase portion, which was not given to him; and

therefore, that he was constrained to approach respondents 1 to 3

with Ext.P4 representation seeking protection to him and his

employees, because the 4th respondent is now meting out threats

and intimidation to them and causing obstruction to his activities.

The petitioner alleges that since no action was taken on Ext.P4, WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021

he has been constrained to approach this Court through this writ

petition.

3. Sri.Thomas Abrham - learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, added to the above, saying that when the 4th

respondent had earlier attacked his client and his employees,

Ext.P2 FIR has been registered and that therefore, they still fear

for their lives, particularly because the 4 th respondent is capable of

any action in violation of law. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed

that the 3rd respondent - Circle Inspector of Police, be directed to

afford his client and his employees protection to their lives, so as

to enable them to continue with the former's business activity in

the first and second floors of the building in question, without any

let or interference from the 4th respondent.

4. In response, Sri.Arun Vadakkan - learned counsel

appearing for the 4th respondent, submitted that a counter affidavit

has been filed on record, wherein, Ext.R4(a) Lease Agreement has

been produced. He submitted that as per Ext.R4(a), his client is in WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021

possession of the building bearing door No. T.C. No.39/2025 and

asserted that it takes in all the three floors, including the staircase.

He, then pointed out that when an attempt was made by the

petitioner to evict his client illegally, he approached the Munsiff's

Court, Thiruvananthapuram and obtained Ext.R4(b) order,

injuncting him from dispossessing or evicting his client from the

plaint schedule property. He, therefore, prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

5. I must record here that, when I heard Sri.Arun

Vadakkan on the afore lines on an earlier occasion when this

matter was listed, I asked him to explain the description of the

plaint schedule property referred to in Ext.R4(b) order of the

Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned counsel,

thereafter, produced the copy of the plaint on record, however,

expressly conceding that the schedule therein was incorrect, since

the building number was shown as T.C.No.39/2005. He had

further submitted that his client has already taken steps to have WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021

the schedule correct.

6. In reply to the afore submissions of Sri.Arun

Vadakkan, Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned counsel for the

petitioner, relied upon an additional counter affidavit filed by his

client, to show me that building bearing No. T.C.No.39/2025 is, in

fact, in the ownership of a lady by name Smt.Lakshmi, as is

manifest from Ext.P7; while his client is in ownership of building

bearing Nos.T.C.No.39/2025/1, T.C.No.39/2025/2 and

T.C.No.39/2025/3, as certified in Ext.P8. He submitted that,

therefore, it is limpid that Ext.R4(a) is a concocted document -

which was created by the petitioner to illegally take full

possession of the property - but that unfortunately for him, while

pursuing his nefarious intention, he got the building number

wrong therein. Sri.Thomas Abraham further added that his client's

signature shown in Ext.R4(a) Agreement is forged and that

necessary steps have been taken by his client in the Civil Court,

for the same to be sent for forensic examination. WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021

7. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is clear that,

on one hand, the 4th respondent claims possession as a tenant over

a building bearing No. T.C. No.39/2025; while the petitioner

asserts that the tenancy is in relation to the building bearing door

Nos. T.C.No.39/2025/1, T.C.No.39/2025/2 alone. Since the 4th

respondent has not been able to show me that he is in possession

of any of property other than T.C.No.39/2025/1 and

T.C.No.39/2025/2, I am certain that he will have to confine his

possession to the same and cannot seek any further benefit on

Ext.R4(a) document, the genuineness of which is now under a

cloud and the consideration of which is pending before a

competent Civil Court.

I am, resultantly, of the firm view that the petitioner is

entitled to relief in this writ petition, provided he undertakes

before this Court that on account of any order to be issued in this

writ petition, he will not evict the 4th respondent from the building

mentioned in Ext.P6 Lease Agreement, namely T.C.No.39/2025/1, WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021

T.C.No.39/2025/2; and that he will await orders from a competent

Civil Court for this purpose.

I must record that Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned counsel

for the petitioner, acceded to this; as also Sri.Arun Vadakkan -

learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. Of course,

Sri.Arun Vadakkan, then pleaded that if his client is able to

establish possession over the entire building, then this Court may

allow him to enforce it through the measures available in law.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and

direct the 3rd respondent - Circle Inspector of Police, to afford

adequate and effective protection to the petitioner and his

employees, so as to enable him to conduct his business in the

second floor of the building in question - bearing Door Nos.

T.C.No.39/2025/3, as also on the third floor - which is still

unnumbered, along with the three fourths area of the parking lot,

which is not covered by Ext.P6 Lease Agreement, without any let

or interference or intimidation from the 4th respondent or his men. WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021

The 4th respondent is, consequently, directed not to enter

into the first and second floor of building in question, unless he is

able to obtain valid orders from a competent Civil Court, since

this Court cannot find favour with him when he says that he is in

possession of the entire building as per Ext.R4(a) Lease

Agreement, which document, prima facie, cannot appeal to this

Court, because the door number mentioned therein is admittedly

incorrect.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/06/10/2021 WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18982/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE FORT POLICE.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE DRIVER OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT SUB DIVISION ON RECEIVING PETITIONERS PETITION.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.9.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS, 1 T0 3

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1453 OF 2021 OF FORT POLICE STATION

Exhibit P6 THE RENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 9.5.2018.

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF LSGD PERTAINING TO TC NO.39/2025.

Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF LSGD PERTAINING TO T.C NO.39/2025/1.

Exhibit P8(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF LSGD PERTAINING TO T.C NO.39/2025/2.

Exhibit P8(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF LSGD PERTAINING TO T.C WP(C) NO. 18982 OF 2021

NO.39/2025/3

Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ON 20.4.2019.

Exhibit P9(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ON 17.12.2020.

Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.11 OF 2021 IN O.S NO.32 OF 2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING TO SEND DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION.

Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 12.8.2021 REQUIRING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO VACATE FROM THE PREMISES.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 28.05.2019 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2021 IN I.A.1/2021 IN O.S.NO.32/2021 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.