IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32194 of 2008(G)
1. E.G.ROBY, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. V.H.MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O.HASSAN, AGED
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM
For Respondent :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :07/11/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 32194 OF 2008
============================
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The petitioner submits, he is the tenant of Building No.
49/188 B of Corporation of Cochin. The second respondent is his
landlord. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second
respondent is trying to evict the petitioner by use of force.
Aggrieved by the high-handed action of the said respondent, he
filed O.S.No.904/2008 before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam and
obtained Ext.P1 injunction order restraining the second
respondent from forcibly evicting him from the plaint schedule
building or from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and
conduct of business in that building. Infuriated by the above
order, the petitioner submits, the second respondent cut off the
amenities like water supply to the tenanted building. So, the
petitioner moved the Accommodation Controller and obtained
WPC.32194/2008 -2-
Ext.P2 order to restore the amenities which have been cut off.
Thereafter, the second respondent started sending musclemen
to the petitioner’s shop to manhandle the him and his employees.
In the above background, Exts.P3 to P5 representations were
filed by the petitioner before the first respondent, the Circle
Inspector of Police, Kalamassery. But the police have not taken
any effective action. So, this writ petition is filed seeking
necessary protection to the life and property of the petitioner and
that of his employees and also for peacefully conducting business
in the tenanted building.
2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions,
submitted that the Sub Inspector of Police recorded a statement
of the petitioner, which disclosed only non-cognizable offences
and therefore, the police have moved the learned Judicial First
Class Magistrate for permission to proceed further in the matter.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit.
According to him, there was a settlement between him and the
petitioner concerning the tenancy and the petitioner agreed to
vacate the room on receiving Rs.90,000/-. In fact, he vacated in
WPC.32194/2008 -3-
January 2008, though he kept of his belongings there.
Thereafter, to riggle out of the agreement, he moved the civil
court and obtained Ext.P1 injunction order. Then he started the
business again. The second respondent submits, he has nothing
to do with the alleged attack on the petitioner or his employees.
In fact, he is being harassed by the petitioner by repeatedly filing
petitions before various authorities. He denied the allegation that
he has influenced the police. In fact, it was the petitioner who
has influence over the police, it is submitted.
4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
5. If the second respondent or his supporters are interfering
with the conduct of the business in the tenanted room, the
petitioner can move that court for violation of the injunction
order or for a direction to the police to grant necessary
protection. The allegations against the second respondent, which
will amount to violation of Ext.P2, can be best gone into by the
civil court concerned and not by the police. But, if there is any
threat to the life of the petitioner or his employees from the
musclemen engaged by the second respondent, he may bring it
WPC.32194/2008 -4-
to the notice of the first respondent. In that event, the first
respondent shall look into the same and if the allegations are
found correct, he shall extend necessary protection to the lives
of the petitioner and his employees, as the occasion demands, in
accordance with law.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI,
JUDGE
ks.