IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34391 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. EMILI VARGHESE, W/O VARGHESE, PULIMOOTTIL PARIYARATH, THAMALLAKKAL, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. 2. AJITHA KUMARI, W/O RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, RESMI NIVAS, THULAMPARAMBU, NADUVATHU MURI, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 3. SUKUMARA PILLAI, S/O HARIHARIPUTHRAN, NIRAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL, HARIPPAD, NADUVATHU MURI, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 4. MANIYAN ACHARI, PALAYATHU VEEDU, HARIPPAD, NADUVATHU MURI, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 5. RAJEEVAN, S/O ANANDAN, ASARIPARAMBU, HARIPPAD, VETTUVENI MURI, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DIST. - 688570. WP(C).No. 34391 of 2011(Y) -2- 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DIST. - 688570. 3. LAILA BEEVI, VALEL VADAKKETHIL, TAJ MANSION, KUNNAMPALLI BHAGOM, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE - 688121. 4. R. VASU, PALAKULANGARA MADATHIL, DANAPPADY MURI, HARIPPAD VILLAGE - 688010. 5. VANI, PALAKULANGARA MADATHIL, DANAPPADY MURI, HARIPPAD VILLAGE - 688010. 6. VIJITH, PALAKULANGARA MADATHIL, DANAPPADY MURI, HARIPPAD VILLAGE - 688010. 7. FIROZ KHAN, S/O SYED MOHAMMED LABBA, 'USHUS', VETTUVENI MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLI - 688166. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34391 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 11/06/10 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPPAD ON IA NO.798/10 IN OS NO.187/10. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLINT DT. 27/06/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT. 19/11/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S. NO.187/10 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPPAD. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 23/11/11 OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.34391 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose In this Writ Petition, five tenants who are in occupation of five different shop rooms and who are presently facing eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Court are seeking police protection for their lives and for peaceful conduct of business in the shop rooms in their respective possession till they are duly evicted from the shops in their possession. It is conceded in the Writ Petition itself that the petitioners have already secured an order of injunction against respondents 3 and 4 from a competent civil court restraining forcible eviction and interference by respondents 3 and 4. The case of the petitioners is that 7th respondent has subsequently come to own a portion of the building and that respondents 5 and 6 who are respectively the daughter and son-in-law of the 4th respondent who are not parties in W. P. C. No.34391 of 2011 -2- the suit filed before the Munsiff Court have started troubling the petitioners. According to the petitioners respondents 1 and 2 are not very enthusiastic in taking action on the complaint submitted by the petitioners. 2. On considering this Writ Petition for admission, Sri.Cyriac Kurian, the learned Senior Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Having considered the averments in the Writ Petition and the submissions addressed before us by Sri.Saju John the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Cyriac Kurian, the learned Senior Government Pleader, we are of the view that the protection which is sought in respect of possession of the shop rooms against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is unnecessary and cannot be granted as the Civil Court is already in seizin of the matter. As for respondents 5 and 6 it was conceded before us that though in the proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2A respondents 5 and 6 have been made parties, they are not parties to the suit or to the injunction petition. Under the above circumstances, we feel W. P. C. No.34391 of 2011 -3- that protection which the petitioners have sought in respect of their lives is a matter to be looked into and decided upon by the 1st respondent. So also the question whether protection should be given to the petitioners against respondents 5 to 7 in respect of their peaceful possession of the shop rooms and conduct of business by them in the respective shop rooms is also a matter to be considered by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent should realise that the tenants who are liable to be evicted under the provisions of Act 2 of 1965 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are entitled to continue in possession till they are lawfully evicted. We therefore are inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition at this stage itself giving relief to a certain extent in favour of the petitioner even without notice to the party respondents. 3. The 1st respondent is directed to take up Ext.P2 at the earliest and to conduct an enquiry into the same. As part of the enquiry, the 1st respondent can summon or meet respondents 5 to 7. If a statement of the 5th respondent is to W. P. C. No.34391 of 2011 -4- be taken the same will be so taken in the presence of Civil Police Officer (woman). The 1st respondent can summon or meet respondents 3 and 4 also as part of the enquiry. Statement if any will be taken from the 3rd respondent only in the presence of a CPO Woman. If the enquiry reveals that there is subsisting threat to the life and limbs of the petitioners from the part of any of the party respondents (3 to 7), the 1st respondent shall take such steps as are necessary for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioners. If the enquiry reveals that there is threat to the continued possession by the petitioners of their building in their possession which are subject matter of the Rent Control Proceedings from the part of respondents 5 to 7 then the 1st respondent shall issue peremptory directions to those respondents that they are not entitled to disturb the possession of the petitioners in the building or the conduct of business by the petitioners in their respective shop rooms till the petitioners are evicted in execution of an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. The petitioners W. P. C. No.34391 of 2011 -5- are directed to send copies of this judgment as soon as they obtain the same by Registered Post with acknowledgment due to respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE