IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2443 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ELIZEBETH MICKLE, IX 214, NEAR MANDIRAM CHURCH, FORT KOCHI, VELI, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J. SAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CITY, ERNAKULAM – 682 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM – 682 001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM – 682 001. 4. KANTHARI FAROOQ, HOUSE NO: 546, 5TH WARD, PUTHIYA ROAD, COCHIN CORPORATION, COCHIN – 682 001. 5. RAHILA, W/O. IMPICHY ASHARAF, HOUSE NO: 546, 5TH WARD, PUTHIYA ROAD, COCHIN CORPORATION, COCHIN. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS, R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2443/2011-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE HOUSE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/01/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.2443 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner is the landlady in respect of a residential building. She had admittedly let it out earlier to someone. That tenant had surrendered the building. Subsequently it is her case that the husband of the 5th respondent had approached her for leasing out the building to him for occupation along with his wife, the 5th respondent and their children. According to the petitioner, she did not lease out the building actually. Subsequently the husband of the 5th respondent was involved in a crime registered under the provisions of the N.D.P.S Act. In view of his involvement in the criminal case, the petitioner did not want to lease the building to the 5th respondent and her husband. But it is the case of the petitioner that some people forcibly kept certain articles belonging to respondent No.5 and her husband in the residential building in question. According to the petitioner, subsequently at the intervention of mediators, those articles were removed. But even now the 5th respondent is asserting a right to occupy the building as a tenant. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent W.P(C) No.2443 of 2011 2 is a notorious person rendering a helping hand to the 5th respondent in the absence of her husband who is now in jail. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 have been served. The 4th respondent has not entered appearance. The 5th respondent has an entirely different story to advance. According to the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent and her husband were lawfully inducted into possession as tenants. They along with their children were residing in that house. Unfortunately the 5th respondent's husband was involved in a criminal case. He was arrested and he now continues in the custody. After the 5th respondent's husband was arrested, the petitioner wanted to somehow throw the 5th respondent and her family out of possession. The petitioner had with the support of some local persons thrown out the articles belonging to the 5th respondent and family from the house. The 5th respondent is now helpless. Her husband is in jail. She has no other place to reside along with her children. The high handed action of the petitioner has deprived the 5th respondent the comfort of her roof. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march in the dispute between the parties by seeking police protection for her. The 5th respondent is only peacefully asserting her right to continue to W.P(C) No.2443 of 2011 3 be in occupation as a tenant. She has absolutely no intention to indulge in any culpable, contumacious or violent acts against the petitioner. This petition may, in these circumstances, be dismissed, prays the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submits that as per the instructions of the police officials there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. It is true that there is a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the 5th respondent on the other. They have made contra assertions. While the petitioner says that no lease had commenced, the 5th respondent asserts that the lease had commenced and she and her family were in occupation even before her husband was arrested. According to the police officials, the 5th respondent was in occupation and she was forcibly thrown out of possession. Her articles were thrown out. They remain on the road. The police had seized the same under a mahazar. A crime has been registered against the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader, in these circumstances, prays that no directions may be issued to afford police protection to the petitioner. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We do not W.P(C) No.2443 of 2011 4 want in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to resolve the civil dispute between the petitioner on the one had and the 5th respondent on the other as to whether the tenancy has actually commenced or not. It is for the parties to go before the civil court and get that dispute between them resolved in accordance with law. The police cannot be clothed with the power to decide that civil dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The parties will have to seek orders from the civil court and abide by such orders. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions for police protection can or need be issued. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.2443 of 2011 5 W.P(C) No.2443 of 2011 6 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.2443 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 3. Issue notice to respondents 4 and 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondents 4 and 5 by special messenger. 2. Verify service and call again on 31.01.2011. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) W.P(C) No.2443 of 2011 7 rtr/