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. 8880 of 2011(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.B.RATHI, W/O.SABU, THEKKETHERUVIL HOUSE, AZHIKKAL P.O., VYPIN-682 510. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL-682 510. 3. SMT.LEELA, W/O.RAJU, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AZHIKKAL P.O., VYPIN-682 510. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 8880/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT DATED 13/11/2000. P2: COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 03/02/2011 P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR LICENSE FEE ISSUED TO THE PANCHAYATH DATED 13/02/2003 P4: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16/03/2011. P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.8880 of 2011-H ***************************** Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner, a woman, has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to afford protection to the petitioner against the illegal attempt by the 3rd respondent using antisocial elements and muscle power to throw her out of possession of a building, allegedly leased to her by the 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, she is a tenant under the 3rd respondent. She is in possession and is carrying on business in that room. The 3rd respondent attempted to forcibly throw the petitioner out of possession of that room by influencing police officials. The petitioner had occasion to complain to higher officials and the threat of police harassment thus ceased. However, now the 3rd respondent is renewing the attempt by employing muscle men and antisocial elements. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued. 3. The 3rd respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The 3rd respondent denies the allegation that the W.P(C) No.8880 of 2011-H 2 petitioner is in possession of any room. In the veranda of the house of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's father was permitted to put up an S.T.D booth. That S.T.D booth is now not there and that activity has been discontinued. The petitioner is trying to establish a right of tenancy in the veranda of the house of the 3rd respondent. This is not justifiable. At any rate, before the right of the petitioner as a tenant is established by procedure known to law, the petitioner is not justified in seeking police protection to enforce that disputed right of herself - allegedly as a tenant. In these circumstances, the 3rd respondent prays that this petition may be dismissed and the parties may be referred to the civil court for resolution of the controversy about the civil rights between them. The 3rd respondent denies all allegations raised against her including the allegation that she is resorting to muscle power to settle disputes. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the 2nd respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police of the local Police Station, does not perceive any threat to law and order. According to the learned Government Pleader, the police is satisfied that there is a civil dispute between the parties and that dispute has to be resolved by civil court in W.P(C) No.8880 of 2011-H 3 accordance with law. Parties cannot expect assistance of the police to enforce their disputed civil rights when the very existence of the right is in dispute between the parties. 5. We have considered all the relevant facts. We shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion which may prejudice the interests of the contestants when they appear before the civil court in assertion of their rights. Suffice it to say that we are not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of this Court need be issued when the very civil right is in dispute between the parties. 6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but we make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to approach the civil court for enforcement of right. Nor shall it absolve the police of their obligation to respond to commission of crimes and to prevent such commission in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/