IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34081 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. NOUSHAD, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADAR, METHARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAVOORTHARA MURI, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, MANNAM.PO. 2. ARAVINDAKSHAN, STAMP VENDOR, ROOM NO.209/5, PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, NORTH PARAVOOR 683 513. 3. RAMESH MALLAN, DMP FLOOR MART, ROOM NO.208/5, PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, N.PARAVOOR 683 513. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, P.O.NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, (ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER)PARAVOOR TALUK, P.O.NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. KUPPAYANDI PILLAI, S/O GANDHIMATHI PILLAI, PARAVOORKARA MURI, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, P.O.NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R3 SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO.34081/2008 -2- APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECITON FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND IN THE WRIT PETITION AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P1 APPLICATION. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20- 7-2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 30-9-2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3TRD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P6 SERIES TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE POLICE DATED 13-11-2008, 17-11-2008 AND RECEIPT DATED 17-11-2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17-11-2008 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R3(A): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE BUILDING. EXT.R3(B): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE BUILDING. EXT.R3(C): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE BUILDING. EXT.R3(D): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE BUILDING EXT.R3(E): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE BUILDING W.P.(C)NO.34081/2008 -3- EXT.R3(F): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER GEORGE THOMAS OLLUKKARAN IN RCP NO. 17/2007, MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 26-10-2007 TOGETHER WITH REPORT OF RAJI.C.R.LICENSED ENGINEER. EXT.R3(G): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT DATED 7-8-2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER. EXT.R3(H): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENATION DATED 30-10-2008 SUBMITTED BEFORRE THE COMMISISONER AND SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.R3(I): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NEWSLY COLLAPSED PORTION. EXT.R3(J): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NEWLY COLLAPSED PORTION. EXT.R3(K): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NEWLY COLLAPSED PORTION. ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 34081 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners are the tenants of the third respondent. The said respondent has already moved the Rent Controller, North Paravoor by filing R.C.P.No.17/2007 seeking eviction of them on various grounds including reconstruction. The petitioners submit, in the meantime, since the building required urgent repairs, the second petitioner and his father, who are in occupation of room No.209/5 of the said building, moved the Accommodation Controller, the second respondent herein, for emergent repairs of the building. The Accommodation Controller upheld the claim of the applicants before the said authority and passed Ext.P3 order. Since the landlord did not obey the direction, further orders were passed by the Accommodation Controller permitting the applicants before him to undertake the WPC.34081/2008 -2- repairs and to adjust the costs incurred by them against the rent payable by them and it was also stipulated that the amount should not exceed the rent for a period of one year. The Village Officer concerned was also authorised to supervise the work and also monitor the costs involved. The petitioners submit, when attempt was made to repair the building pursuant to the above order, the landlord and his men physically obstructed them. So, the 2nd petitioner moved Ext.P7 representations before the police. Alleging that the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the police to extend necessary protection, so that the petitioners can carry out the urgent repairs of the building in terms of Ext.P3 order. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the parties were called to the police station and they have agreed not to undertake any repairs till the trial of the R.C.P.is over. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the building is in a dilapidated condition and beyond repairs and therefore, eviction is sought to undertake the reconstruction of the building. The said respondent has produced photographs WPC.34081/2008 -3- of the building, which would show that the building has practically collapsed. He also further submits that he has received Ext.P3 order recently and he has invoked the appellate remedy against that order before the District Collector. In view of the above facts, the third respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. We notice that Section 13 (4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 confers ample powers on the Accommodation Controller to enforce its orders. The said provision reads as follows: “13. Landlord not to interfere with amenities enjoyed by the tenant. xx xx xx xx (4) If the Accommodation Controller on inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the amenities and that they were cut off or withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such amenities and for the purpose of enforcement of such orders, the Accommodation Controller may exercise all the powers of a civil court in executing a decree for injunction or for specific performance.” WPC.34081/2008 -4- 5. In view of the above provision, the Accommodation Controller can take coercive steps to execute Ext.P3. He can also address the police to render assistance to enforce that order. Having regard to the facts disclosed, we feel that it is not proper for this Court to direct the police under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to render police assistance. Further, the Accommodation Controller has got ample powers to enforce his orders. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of both sides and the rights of the petitioners to approach other appropriate forums for appropriate reliefs. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks.