Jomon Jose vs The Circle Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 19611 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 18322 OF 2020


PETITIONERS:

     1     JOMON JOSE, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, KANJIRAKKAT HOUSE,
           MUDAVOOR, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.

     2     JAYAKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
           PULAKKUDY PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, INJOORKKARA, VARAPETTY
           VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.

           BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL


RESPONDENTS:

     1     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
           NORTH POLICE STATION, MELAMURI, PALAKKAD-679307.

     2     SIVADAS K., S/O.APPUKUTTAN, SAROVARAM, THEKKEMURI,
           PIRIYARI AMSOM DESOM, KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD-678006.

     3     SAJITHA S., W/O.SIVADAS K., S/O.APPUKUTTAN, SAROVARAM,
           THEKKEMURI, PIRIYARI AMSOM DESOM, KALLEKKAD,
           PALAKKAD-678006.

           BY ADVS:
           SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
           SRI.E.C.BINEESH - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 18322/20
                                          2



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that they are in

possession of certain buildings as tenants, which

are owned by respondents 2 and 3. They say that

they are running a business of dealership in used

vehicles, on the basis of valid licenses issued by

the competent Local Self Government Institutions.

They, however, allege that respondents 2 and 3 are

attempting to evict them, using force; which

constrained them to approach this Court by filing

W.P(C)No.5024/2020, in which orders for Police

protection were issued in their favour; and that

subsequently, they moved the Munsiff's Court,

Palakkad, by filing W.P(C)No.209/2020, wherein, an

ad interim injunction has been issued against the

respondents 2 and 3 from evicting them, except

under the process of law.

2. The petitioners allege that in spite of

the above, respondents 2 and 3, along with their WPC 18322/20

men, demolished a toilet in the premises in

question, using a Poclan and therefore, that they

were constrained to approach the 1st respondent,

through Ext.P3, complaint seeking protection.

They accuse that no action was taken by the 1 st

respondent on their complaint, thus forcing them

to approach this Court.

3. I have heard Sri.Sajeev Kumar Gopal -

learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri.Sajan

Varghese K. - learned counsel appearing for

respondents 2 and 3 and Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned

Government Pleader.

4. Sri.Sajan Varghese opposed the afore plea

of the petitioners, saying that the allegations

made by them are incorrect and that their attempt

is to continue in possession of the property

without paying rent as agreed by them. He

explained that large amounts are due to his

clients as rent from the petitioners and thus

prayed that this Court not grant them any reliefs. WPC 18322/20

He then added that his clients have not tried and

do not intend to evict the petitioners, except

under the process of law and further that the

allegation, that they had demolished the toilet,

is baseless since no such incident has ever

happened. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ

Petition be dismissed.

5. The learned Government Pleader -

Sri.E.C.Bineesh, submitted that the Police is

keeping close vigil over the area in question and

that no incidents of breach of law and order or

peace have yet been noted. He added that Police

will continue to keep vigil in future.

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it

is without doubt that even if the petitioners are

holding over the property, after the period of

lease and even if they have defaulted or refused

to pay the rent, the remedy of respondents 2 and 3

is not to use violence or to demolish any portion

of the building, but to evict them as per law. In WPC 18322/20

fact, it is conceded before me by Sri.Sajan

Varghese that his clients have already initiated

such action and I am, therefore, of the firm view

that reliefs sought for by the petitioners must be

acceded to, so that there is no violation of law

and order in the area in question.

Resultantly, recording the afore submissions

of Sri.Sajan Varghese, I allow this Writ Petition;

consequently, directing the 1st respondent to

afford adequate and effective protection to the

lives of the petitioners, as also to that of

respondents 2 and 3, from causing any act

prejudicial to each other in future and to further

maintain law and order in the area in question

without any breach.

Needless to say, if any complaint is received

from the petitioners or from respondents 2 and 3

with respect to any violation of the afore

directions, the 1st respondent will immediately act

as per the applicable law and initiate and WPC 18322/20

conclude action thereon swiftly and quickly.

It goes without saying that all the remedies

of respondents 2 and 3 with respect to the

allegations of non-payment of rent and overstay of

the petitioners are left open, to be pursued by

them appropriately in a competent Court.

Sd/-

RR                                   DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                          JUDGE
 WPC 18322/20


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18322/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED

BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.5024 OF 2020(C).

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1293/2020 IN O.S.NO.209/2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 28.08.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN EXHIBIT P2.

Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/08/2020 PAST IN EXHIBIT P2.