1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.7864 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Banumathi Manoharan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai-1. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police (L&O) Anna Nagar, Madurai-20. 3.G.Paulraj .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner and her family members from the building in Door No.72, 2nd North Cross Street, Anna Nagar, Madurai-20 till the civil case pending (R.C.O.P.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town) is finally disposed of. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Aravindan For Respondents : Mr.TS.Mohameed Mohideen for R1 & R2 AGP Mr.J.Anand Kumar for R3 ORDER The petitioner is a tenant. Admittedly she is facing eviction proceedings under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960 in R.C.O.P.No.87 of 2006 filed by the third respondent. The R.C.O.P. petition is filed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 2. It must be noted that that same petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.7423 of 2011 and that writ petition was disposed of without notice to the land owner and after ordering notice only to the Additional Government Pleader on 06.07.2011. In that writ petition, the petitioner was given liberty to approach the competent authority if any breach of law was committed by any other person. It was informed to this Court by the petitioner that she was forcibly sought to be evicted by the third respondent. Even then, this Court did not grant any positive order in favour of the petitioner. 3. Instead of finding a solution as per the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner on getting a summon from one P.Ilangovan under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and also after sending a telegram stating that a civil case was pending with reference to the house occupied by her, she came forward with the present writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. It was claimed by her that the said property is owned by the third respondent and he made a false complaint against her. In a matter involving a civil dispute, police should not interfere, but unnecessarily the Assistant Commissioner of Police (L&O), Madurai was interfering with her possession of the house. 5. Though these grounds were available to her when she filed the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(MD).No.7423 of 2011 and yet this Court did not grant any relief to her and merely directed to approach the lawful authority. 6. In the present case, the grievance projected by the petitioner was that the third respondent is pressing for eviction. When she is facing with the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town, she and her family members should not be evicted from the building bearing Door No.72, 2nd North Cross Street, Madurai -20. 7. Curiously the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the affidavit stated that she had not filed any other writ petition before this Court regarding the same subject matter, whereas in paragraph 6 he had mentioned about the previous writ petition. 8. In any event, the allegations made by the petitioner is that she is entitled to protect herself in the pending RCOP and till such time, she cannot be disturbed. Such a contention do not merit any acceptance. 9. Under Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Renct Control Act), 1960, it is made clear that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of that Section or Sections 14 to 16. This right of the land owner has been exercised and the matters are pending. Therefore, there is a complete statutory protection under the Act from being evicted except in the manner known to law. 10. The defence taken before this court in the earlier occasion and even now was that her husband had taken the house on the basis of "Oothi" and therefore, no rent was payable and rent if any has to be adjusted from the advance received by the land owner. Such matters of defence will have to be placed before the rent controller and one must satisfy the rent controller that the provision of Section 10(2)(i) of the Act are not attracted. 11. The intention of the petitioner in moving the Court is to forbear the respondents from any interference (either the police or the land owner). Even this defence can be placed before the Rent Controller. Powers are available under Section 11 of the Act. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition as a stop-gap arrangement, when main matters are pending before the Rent Controller. 12 The respondent in their counter affidavit has also stated that in the rent control proceedings on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai, the petitioner had remained exparte and an exparte award has been passed on 17.10.2006. Thereafter, the same was restored. In paragraph 10, it was stated that despite the matter being referred to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 mediation and conciliation centre, she had refused to appear and the land owner was ready to part with the amount claimed as "Oothi" by way of demand draft. 13. However, the petitioner can work out her remedy before the Rent Controller. Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai-1. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police (L&O) Anna Nagar, Madurai-20. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.7864 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 19.12.2011 jikr RJ/4.1.12 3p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/