AFSAL K. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are partners of the firm 'M/s Montenero TVM' and they contend that they are engaged in running of hotels and restaurants. On the strength of Ext.P1 lease deed, they took on lease, premises owned by the 4 th respondent firm, the Managing partner of which is the 3 rd respondent. Shortly thereafter, disputes cropped up between the landlord and tenant. The petitioners contend that they approached the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram, who is the Accommodation Controller, and filed a complaint stating that the 3 rd respondent has cut off their amenities. A report was called for from the Village Officer and on the strength of Ext.P2 report, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Tahsildar directing the respondents 3 and 4 to refrain from causing any hindrance and further to restore the water, electric and sewage connection. Aggrieved by the above, the 3rd respondent started to interfere with the running of the business. It is contended that despite the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the respondents 3 and 4 are obstructing the petitioners in running the restaurant. They approached the 1st respondent and filed Ext.P4 which was followed up with Ext.P5 before the 2 nd respondent. However, no action was taken. It is in the above backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioners for running their hotel without interference from respondents 3 and 4 or anybody acting under them.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein he contends that the assertions made in the writ petition are blatantly false. The 3 rd respondent contends that the possession was handed over back to him and in that view of the matter, the petitioners have no right to cling on to the building or continue with the business. Though it is admitted that Ext.P1 lease deed was executed, it is contended that when the petitioners committed default, the tenancy was terminated. It is further stated that when cheques issued by the petitioners were dishonored, the 3rd respondent has instituted complaints before the learned magistrate and the same is pending. Against the order passed by the Accommodation Controller, the 3rd respondent has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. It is submitted that on enquiry it is revealed that this is a dispute between landlord and tenant and the question of possession will have to be considered by the jurisdictional civil court. However, it is submitted that if there is a law and order situation, the respondents will interfere.