IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15010 of 2011(A) --------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAFFER.K.N., S/O. ALI, KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILE PURAYIL, EZHAM MILE, P.O. KUTTIKKOL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. 4. MALIKKANTAKATH ABDULLA @ ABU, S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI(LATE), NELLIPARAMBA, KUTTIYERI.P.O., KUTTIYERI, KANNUR-670142. 5. MALIKKANTAKATH SAREENA, D/O. S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI(LATE),NEAR MADRASSA, TALIPARAMBA.P.O., KANNUR-670141. 6. K.KUNHIMARIYAM, D/O.MAHAMMOOD(LATE) PUSHPAGIRI, TALIPARAMBA.P.O., KUTTIYERI, KANNUR-670141. 7. K.ABOOBACKER, S/O. MAHAMMOOD(LATE) NELLIPARAMBA, KUTTIYERI.P.O., KUTTIYERI, KANNUR-670142. -2- 8. M.G. RAJEEVAN, S/O. GOPALAPILLAI, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA.P.O., PIN-670141. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. R4 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN R8 BY SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.15010/2011 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE PETITIONERS FATHER WITH THE FATHERS OF RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 DTD. 24-01-1994. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 04-04-1994. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPONDEDNTS 4 TO 7 DTD. 01-06-1998. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PROFESSION TAX BILL IN RESPECT OF ROOM No.XIII/1153 OF THE TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 OF HAVING RECEIVED EXT.P5 COMPLAINT, DTD. 15-05-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R8(1) : COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DTD. 16-10-2009 EXT.R8(2) : COPY OF THE RENEWAL LEASE DEED DTD. 05-03-2010. EXT.R8(3) : COPY OF THE NOTARISED CONSENT LETTER DTD. 20-04-2010. EXT.R8(4) : COPY OF THE RECEIPT FROM SREE POOKOTHU AGENCY PURCHASING LOTTERY TICKETS BY BHAGYADHARA DTD. 18-10-2009, 05-01-2010, 08- 03-2010, 09-05-2010, 30-08-2010 AND 01-10-2010. EXT.R8(5) : COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OS No.164/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.R8(6) : COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DTD. 05-04-2011 IN OS No.164/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.R8(7) : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS No.168/2011 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, TALIPARAMBA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE AMG R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15010 of 2011-A ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the petitioner to peacefully keep possession of a room allegedly in his possession as the legal heir of the deceased tenant - his father. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 to 7 in active collusion with respondent No.8, who is described to be a goonda, is attempting to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. 2. It is the common case that the building was leased by the predecessor in interest of respondents 4 to 7 to the deceased father of the petitioner in 1998 as per Ext.P1. It is the case of the petitioner that his father expired shortly after Ext.P1 and thereafter he has been continuing in possession of the building leased under Ext.P1. While he is so in possession, it is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 to 7, making use of the services of the 8th respondent, are attempting to physically throw him out of possession. The police are guilty of inaction and it is W.P.(C) No. 15010 of 2011 -: 2 :- hence that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3. Respondents 4 to 8 have a different version to advance, though there is a conflict between the contentions of respondents 4 to 7 on the one hand and respondent No.8 on the other. According to respondents 4 to 7, after the death of the father of the petitioner, the building was surrendered in 2008 and thereafter the building was leased to the 8th respondent under a written lease agreement on 16/10/09. The 8th respondent was subsequently in possession of the building as a tenant. The petitioner or his brother, the legal heirs of their deceased father/ tenant, were not in possession after 2008. According to respondents 4 to 7, there is a dispute between the 8th respondent and respondents 4 to 7 now and the petitioner is really put up by the 8th respondent. According to the 8th respondent, there is a collusion between respondents 4 to 7 and the petitioner and the petitioner is put up by respondents 4 to 7 against the 8th respondent now. 4. Respondents 4 to 7 rely on the circumstance that the petitioner has not produced anything to show that any rent has been paid or any business was run by him in the premises after 16/10/09, the date on which the building was, according to W.P.(C) No. 15010 of 2011 -: 3 :- them, leased to the 8th respondent. The petitioner, on the contrary, relies on the fact that there is nothing to show the surrender of the building leased to the father of the petitioner under a written document - Ext.P1. This, in fact, is the bone of contention between the parties. 5. The attempt of the petitioner and even the respondents now is to secure an order from this Court to resolve that controversy. Evidently this Court exercising powers under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot delve deeper into that complicated question of fact. The parties will have to establish their respective claims before the civil court and must seek appropriate direction. We are, in fact, informed that the brother of the petitioner had filed a suit seeking relief from the civil court to protect his alleged possession over the property. That suit was dismissed as the petitioner's brother had erroneously shown the predecessor in interest of respondents 4 to 7 - the lessor in Ext.P1 who had already expired as a party. We are further informed that another suit has been filed by the 4th respondent alleging collusive conduct on the part of the 8th respondent. No interim orders have been secured in that suit also. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police W.P.(C) No. 15010 of 2011 -: 4 :- are satisfied that there is no threat to the law and order. If there be any such threat, the police shall be initiating appropriate and necessary action. In the perception of the police officials, this is purely a civil dispute and the dispute must be settled by the parties by initiating appropriate proceedings before the civil court. Police have not intervened in the civil dispute. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions for police protection can, need or deserve to be issued invoking our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. As to who is in possession as a tenant now, we shall carefully avoid any observation on merits and leave the parties to establish their rights before the civil court. 8. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge