IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14896 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL HYE, NADUVILEVEETTIL, PEERUMUHAMMED MANZIL, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SRI. A.R. DILEEP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPUZHA-688 001. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 502. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 5. ASEEM MUHAMMED ANSARI, MALAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL BITHANOOR, PATHIYOOR EAST, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, PIN-690 552. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14896/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/02/2001 IN RCP. NO.6/97. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/09/2009 IN RCP.NO.11/06. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1294/08 DTD. 26/05/2008 OF THE KAYAMKULAM SRO. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/02/2001 IN E.P. NO. 80/09 IN RCP 6/97. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/02/2011 IN I.A. NO. 114/11 IN R.P. (BRC).NO.1/11. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 26/05/2011 IN O.S. NO. 154/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 11/04/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/04/2006 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6493/2005 OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE R.5. IN I.A. NO.1020/2011 IN O.S. NO. 154/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM. EXT.R5.D: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/07/2009 IN O.S. NO. 379/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.14896 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has secured an order of eviction from the Rent Control Court. His brother, the fifth respondent is the landlord who claims eviction. The petition for eviction was settled and a consent order was passed in the rent control petition. 2. The building has not been surrendered. The fifth respondent has been obliged to initiate proceedings in execution. In the execution proceedings, the petitioner has a contention that his brother is not the landlord and he is the title holder. That contention has been overruled by the execution court and delivery has been ordered. At this juncture, the petitioner had gone to the District Court and has secured Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order stands stayed. That matter is coming up for hearing on the next Monday, i.e.13.6.2011, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner has now come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions to respondents 2 WPC No.14896 of 2011 2 to 4 police officials to afford protection for the life and person of the petitioner against illegal violent, culpable and contumacious conduct on the part of the fifth respondent to throw him physically out of possession from the leased premises and against the acts of violence against him. 4. The fifth respondent has entered appearance. A counter affidavit has been filed. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the allegations are totally false. The fifth respondent is only taking action in accordance with law to secure eviction of the petitioner from the premises. Every attempt is being made to scuttle the due process of law and the petitioner is attempting to cling on to the possession. Contentions have been overruled by the Execution Court and the petitioner has purchased time by filing a revision petition before the District Court under Section 14 of the Rent Control Act. That matter is coming up for hearing on 13.6.2011. The attempt of the petitioner is to steal a march over the fifth respondent and implement his scheme of clinging on to possession. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that there may be a direction to the District Court WPC No.14896 of 2011 3 to dispose of RP(BRC) No.1 of 2011 at the earliest. 5. While admitting this writ petition, we had clarified that the admission of the writ petition will not in any way affect the right of the fifth respondent to execute the order of eviction in the RCP in accordance with law. 6. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the fifth respondent has no intention to and shall not make any attempt to throw the petitioner out of possession by using force and violence. 7. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 2 to 4 submits that in the perception of the police, there is no threat to the life, person or property of the petitioner. If there be any threat, the police shall take necessary action in accordance with law. It is not necessary for this Court to issue any specific directions, submits the learned Government Pleader. 8. We agree with the learned Government Pleader. There is nothing to indicate that the fifth respondent is indulging in any contumacious or violent conduct. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any such conduct, respondents 2 to 4 shall WPC No.14896 of 2011 4 respond to the situation adequately. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no specific directions need be issued by this Court now. 9. Coming to the request of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent for a direction to the District Court, Mavelikkara for expeditious disposal of RP(BRC) No.1 of 2011, we are not persuaded to issue any specific directions. But, we may observe that any court interested in the proper and expeditious settlement of unnecessary outstanding disputes must make every attempt to dispose of the said RP(BRC) No.1 of 2011 at the earliest. It shall be open to the fifth respondent to make appropriate request before that Court. 10. Hand over copy to the counsel for the fifth respondent. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ WPC No.14896 of 2011 5 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.14896 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- WPC No.14896 of 2011 6 Dated this the 2nd June, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 4. Issue notice to respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and the petitioner is permitted to take out notice by special messenger to respondent No.5. Verify service. Call again on 9.6.2011. 2. We clarify that the admission of this writ petition will not in any way affect the right of the 5th respondent to execute the order of eviction in the RCP in accordance with law. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/