IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2630 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.ALEX K. IYPE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KATTAKKAYAM, PATTIMATTOM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DY.S.P., LAW & ORDER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ. ADDL. R4. SMT. LEESA JOY, W/O. LATE DR. JOY K. PETER, JOYOUSE HOUSE, KODIYAMPARAYIL HOUSE KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, KOLENCHERRY P.O. 5. PETER K. JOY, S/O. LATE DR. JOY K. PETER, DO. DO. ADDL. R4 & 5 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.3.2.10 IN I.A. 1457/10. R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SUKUMARAN ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE FOR ADDL.R4 & 5 SMT.MANJU RAJAN FOR ADDL.R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: NIL RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT DT.20.11.07 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5. EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 19.11.08 ISSUED BY ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DT.2.12.08. EXT.R4(d) TRUE COPY OF R.C.P.NO.1/2008 FILED BY ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT KOLENCHERRY DT. 5.12.08. EXT.R4(e) TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT FILED IN R.C.P. 1/08 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLENCHERY DT. 8.1.2009. EXT.R4(f) TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P. 1/08 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLENCHERRY DT.31.3.09. EXT.R4(g) TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P. 1/08 DT. 4.1.2010. EXT.R4(h) TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING TAKEN ON 25.1.2010 EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER HAD MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO MAKE MATERIAL ALTERATIONS TO THE BUILDING. EXT.R4(i) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DT. 25.1.2010 BEFORE THE SUB INPSECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ. EXT.R4(j) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.30.11.2000 IN O.S.NO. 5/98 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRY. EXT.R4(k) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DT. 18.8.97 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SRI. BABY THOMAS. EXT.R4(l) TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF INJUNCTION DT.29.1.2010 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRY IN I.A. 35/10 IN O.S. 9/2010. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 2630 of 2010 C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner and his children. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is a tenant of additional respondents 4 and 5. It is stated that a rent control petition has been filed for eviction of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 24.1.2010 the petitioner deputed coolie workers for cleaning the shop room, but the 5th respondent, his relative and other ten persons trespassed into the building along with the Asst. Sub Inspector and five other police constables. They ousted the petitioner and his workers from the shop room. The police W.P.(C).No. 2630 of 2010 2 directed to close the shutters and further permitted the owner of the building to lock the room. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by additional respondents 4 and 5. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, additional respondents 4 and 5 as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 and 5 would refer to the litigation pending before the Rent Control Court and various orders passed. He would further submit that the petitioner continues to be the tenant in possession. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the filing of the petition, the petitioner has regained possession. 6. In such circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition as follows. Respondents 1 to 3 shall not interfere in the dispute between the petitioner and additional respondents 3 to 5. The matter is pending consideration before the competent forum. It is for the said forum to decide the rights of the parties. We also make it clear that we have not W.P.(C).No. 2630 of 2010 3 pronounced on the contentions of the parties, which are to be decided by the competent court. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm