T. T. ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. M. KUTTIMAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that he has taken on lease building bearing Nos.29/122A, 29/122A1, 29/122A3, 29/122A4 and 29/122B2 situated in Re-Survey No.71-4-41 of Nellikode Village from the 1st respondent on the strength of a lease agreement for conducting a restaurant. The 2nd respondent is stated to be the person, who looks after the affairs of the 1st respondent, who is an NRI. The petitioner contends that disputes have arisen between the landlord and the tenant. O.S.No.26 of 2020 has been filed by the 1st respondent for realising a sum of Rs.17, 79, 750/- being the arrears of rent due from the petitioner, the monthly rent being Rs.5,65,000/-. It is further stated that the 1st respondent has also preferred a petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction. It is contended that knowing fully well that the petitioner cannot be evicted except as per due process of law, the respondents 1 and 2 have influenced the 5th respondent, the sub-inspector of police and he has directed the petitioner to vacate the building. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent has no authority to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties particularly when the matter is pending before the civil court. Left with no alternative, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondents 3 and 4 seeking interference and to curtail the activities of the 5th respondent. However, no action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking interference.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2, in the counter affidavit filed by them, have denied the contentions of the petitioner. They have denied that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed premises. According to the respondents, the rent arrears had mounted to about Rs.92 lakhs and a cheque issued by the petitioner towards part payment of the arrears was dishonoured. Proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act have been initiated against the petitioner. It is further contended that a suit for realisation of the amount was filed limiting the claim. They denied that the petitioner is conducting hotel business and referring to Exts.R1 (a) and (b), it is contended that the petitioner has not been issued any licence either from the local authority or from the food safety office. According to the respondents, against the understanding between the parties, the petitioner housed several migrant laborers in the building and on receiving the said information, a complaint was lodged by the respondents herein before the police. The parties were summoned and as is evident from Ext.R1(c) undertaking given by the brother of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner vacated the premises and took away the entire articles. According to the respondents, the petitioner is conducting a hotel business in some other building. Insofar as the allegation of threat and harassment is concerned, it is submitted that the same is baseless.

(3.) I have heard Sri. V.V.Surendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Veena Hari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. K.P.Harish, the learned Government Pleader.