IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 RP.No. 767 of 2011(D) IN WPC.20239/11 ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.20239/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.7: -------------------------------------------------- RENJU OOMMEN, S/O.LATE OOMMEN VARGHESE, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM-695001 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA 689645 3. REGHUVARAN NAIR DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITA POLICE STATION-689645 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION-689645 RP.No. 767 of 2011(D) -2- 6. DEEPU OOMMEN, S/O.LATE OOMMEN VARGHESE, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645 7. MATHEW P.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, ADVOCATE, PUTHENVEETIL CHURCH VIEW, ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.767 of 2011 in W. P. C. No.20239 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner who was the 7th respondent in the Writ Petition seeks review of our judgment dated 27/07/11 in the Writ Petition on various grounds and particularly on the ground that under the cover of the above judgment the 7th respondent (the petitioner in the Writ Petition) is indulging in various illegal acts including putting up of un-authorised constructions without the permission of the landlord, the review petitioner. Reliance is placed on Annexure-R7(h) Commissioner's Report prepared on the basis of a subsequent inspection conducted by an Advocate Commissioner in a civil suit filed before the Pathanamthitta Sub Court by the 7th respondent the Writ Petitioner himself. Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, the learned counsel for the review R. P. No.767 of 2011 -2- petitioner and Sri.Rajmohan R. Pillai, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent in the Writ Petition addressed us on the various grounds raised in the review petition. Sri.Shanavas Khan would submit that the review petitioner is not opposed to police protection being granted to the Writ Petitioner for his life and also for peaceful possession of the building let out to him but the Writ Petitioner should not be allowed to misuse the protection orders granted by this Court in his favour in such a manner as to cause obstruction to the landlord and to the other tenants of the landlord who are in occupation of various portions of the larger building which is a four storeyed one. The situation which has resulted on account of the additional constructions like putting up of a grill etc. by the Writ Petitioner is that in order that the authorities of the Electricity Board are able to conduct metre reading in respect of the connections given in the second and third floors the permission of the Writ Petitioner will have to be sought. This situation should not be allowed to continue. Sri.Shanavas Khan also submitted that it is the R. P. No.767 of 2011 -3- review petitioner who needs protection and not the Writ Petitioner. Sri.Rajmohan R. Pillai took strong exception to all the submissions of Sri.Shanavas Khan. According to Sri.Rajmohan even now there is attempt by the review petitioner/landlord to evict the petitioner from the building let out to him other than due process of law. No illegality has been perpetrated by the Writ Petitioner transgressing the limits of this Court's judgment in the Writ Petition or by misusing the same. 2. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar as well as the materials which are placed on record along with the review petition, we do not find reason for withdrawing any of the directions that we have issued in our judgment dated 27/07/11 in W.P.C.20239/11 as all those directions pertain to rendition of police protection to the life and limbs of the petitioner and also for peaceful possession by the petitioner of the building let out to him. But we clarify that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled under our judgment to put up any constructions or R. P. No.767 of 2011 -4- structures on the building which is let out to him or to the other portions of the larger building, a portion of which only is the building let out to him. The learned Subordinate Judge who is in seizin of O.S.315/11 and the courts and authorities which are in seizin of the other litigations between the parties are not to be influenced in any manner by our judgment in taking decision in those litigations. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-