Kerala High Court
Pete'S Automotive Products Private ... vs The Station House Officer (Sho) on 3 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:8517
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
PETE'S AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED
BUILDING NO. 101/102, KANNADIKADU, N.H.BYPASS,
MARADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR, AKASH JAMES. S/O. JAMES PAUL, KACHAPPILLY
HOUSE, ANGAMALY SOUTH PO, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682304
BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO),
MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN -
682004
2 P.R. ASHOK KUMAR
S/O. RAVINDRAN, PARAPPILLIL HOUSE, MARADU PO, MARADU
DESOM, MARDAU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682304
GP SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:8517
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.1596 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1 st
respondent to afford adequate police protection to the
petitioner to run the company from any threat from the
2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company
engaged in automobile repair service functioning in a
property that is leased out by the 2 nd respondent and his
mother. The 2nd respondent along with few unidentified
persons entered into the premises on 01.01.2025 and
caused an unpleasant situation. The petitioner had
submitted a complaint before the 1st respondent for police
protection. However, no action was taken. On the
following day, again the 2 nd respondent trespassed into the
premises and demolished the entry gate. Again the
petitioner submitted another complaint before the 1 st
respondent. But, no action has been taken. The inaction on
WP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2025
2025:KER:8517
st
the part of the 1 respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ
petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit
stating that he is a law abiding citizen and a Lawyer
practicing before this Court. He and his mother are the
owners of the premises that was leased to the petitioner
as per Ext.R2(a) lease deed. The petitioner is liable to pay
Rs.24,73,236/- towards arrears of rent. The 2 nd
respondent's mother is suffering from various ailments.
The tenure of the lease has expired. The 2 nd respondent
has issued Ext.R2(d) draft surrender lease deed to the
petitioner. Even though the petitioner assured to vacate
the premises by 31.12.2024 and settle the arrears, they
have failed to keep up to their promise, instead they have
renovated the office premises. The 1 st respondent has
directed the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to appear
before him. The 1st respondent has stated that the dispute
between the parties is purely civil in nature. The 2 nd
respondent is proposing to initiate proceedings to evict
the petitioner in accordance with law. He has already
WP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2025
2025:KER:8517
issued Ext.R2(i) lawyer notice. The petitioner has no valid
grounds to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this
Court. His remedy is to approach the Rent Control Court.
Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Government Pleader and the 2nd respondent.
5. The 2nd respondent submitted that he had no
intention to forcefully evict the petitioner. He has already
initiated legal proceedings by issuing Ext.R2(i) lawyer
notice to the petitioner, to evict him in accordance with
law. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that the
2nd respondent is misconceived. The learned Government
Pleader submitted that the dispute between the parties is
civil in nature.
6. On a consideration of the facts and the materials
on record, and taking into account the submission made
by the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that the writ
petition is to be allowed.
Hence, I dispose of the writ petition by directing
the 1st respondent to afford police protection to the
WP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2025
2025:KER:8517
nd
petitioner in the event of the 2 respondent or any of his
men attempt to forcefully evict the petitioner from the
premises. Nonetheless, the 2nd respondent's right to evict
the petitioner, in accordance with law, is left open.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/03.02.25
WP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2025
2025:KER:8517
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1596/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT ENTERED
BETWEEN PETITIONER COMPANY REPRESENTED BY
ITS THEN MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH HIS MOTHER DATED
04.10.2018
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO POLICE ALONG WITH
ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 02.01.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER ON 03.01.2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the registered lease
agreement dated 21/10/2018
Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the rent arrears statements
from August 2019 to December 2024
Exhibit R2(c) True copy of the Discharge Summary dated
30-10-2024
Exhibit R2(d) True copy if the Screen Shot in Wats app
Exhibit R2(e) true photograph of the renovation Work
Exhibit R2(f) True copy of the complaint dated
16/01/2025
Exhibit R2(g) acknowledgement Receipt dated 16-01-2025
Exhibit R2(h) True copy of the trial court proceedings
dated 18-12-2024 to 19-12-2024
Exhibit R2(i) True copy of the Lawyers Notice dated
17/01/2025
Exhibit R2(j) True copy of the postal receipt dated
17/01/2025
