IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9975 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JAMEELA, W/O.P.K.MUHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS, POOLAKKAL HOUSE, KOODARANJI, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VADAKARA (RURAL), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 101. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 001. 3. DR.SANTHEEP P.C., S/O.BHARATHAN, 'SOUBHAGYA', KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 571. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.9975 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, a woman, has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner to cut open an independent entrance to one room in a building belonging to her. 2. The petitioner asserts that she is the owner of a three storeyed building. According to the petitioner, there are three rooms on the third floor. Two rooms in that floor have admittedly been leased to the third respondent herein, a Dentist, under Ext.P1 agreement which is described to be a license agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that though Ext.P1 does not specifically and explicitly reveal that, there is a third room in that floor in addition to the two rooms let out to the third respondent. Access to the third room is through the premises leased/licensed to the third respondent, it is asserted. At present, admittedly, there is WPC No.9975/2011 2 no access to the said third room except through the premises leased/licensed to the third respondent under Ext.P1. The petitioner wants to cut open a wall to make a new entrance to the said third room. The third respondent is opposing that. It is hence that the petitioner claims police protection. 3. It is very easy to come to the conclusion that there is a dispute between the parties about the extent of premises leased/licensed under Ext.P1. The total absence of a recital in Ext.P1 of any right of access for the petitioner to such alleged third room through the property leased/licenced to the third respondent speak volumes to reveal the real nature of the dispute. We do not intend to express any final opinion on that disputed question. Suffice it to say that we are not persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue any specific directions in favour of the petitioner to permit her to cut open a new door to such a third room into which the access now admittedly is through the premises licensed/leased under Ext.P1. The petitioner must certainly WPC No.9975/2011 3 get her right if any established in accordance with law. 4. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/