SANTHOSH KUMAR NAIR Vs. SURESH P. SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 5th respondent in W.P.(C).No.21186/2022 - petitioner's landlord - is the appellant herein. The judgment in the above writ petition dtd. 8/8/2022 is impugned in this appeal, which directed the Station House Officer concerned (3rd respondent in the writ petition) to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner as regards his life and property. The judgment also directed the 4th respondent (The Corporation, Thrissur) not to cancel Ext.P2 license for conducting a restaurant, without notice to the petitioner and hearing him.

(2.) Facts in brief:- The parties are referred to from their original status in the Writ Petition. The petitioner is conducting a restaurant in building no.39/1687/1 taken on rent from the 5th respondent/landlord. Ext.P1 dtd. 31/8/2021 is the consent issued by the 5th respondent before the 4th respondent Corporation, enabling the petitioner to conduct the restaurant. The petitioner is possessed of Ext.P2 license issued by the Corporation and Ext.P3 consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The restaurant was inaugurated on 8/5/2022, as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P4(a) photographs. From 5/6/2022 onwards, the petitioner fell sick and could not open the restaurant. During that period, the 5th respondent/landlord trespassed into the tenanted premises on 24/6/2022, opened the same with the duplicate key, removed the furniture, fittings and other valuables therein and destroyed the improvements made in the kitchen. Besides, the petitioner, who went to the premises, upon coming to know about the above high handed activities of the 5th respondent, was assaulted. He preferred Ext.P5 complaint before the 3rd respondent/Inspector of Police. He also preferred Ext.P8 complaint to the District Police Chief. According to the petitioner, he has spent more than Rupees fifty lakhs for the restaurant and he is a lawful tenant and therefore, the 5th respondent/landlord has no authority to enter into the tenanted premises without the junction of the petitioner, much less to remove the valuables therein. On such premise, he seeks issuance of writ of mandamus seeking adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, along with an order directing respondents 2 and 3 to register a criminal case against the 5th respondent, acting upon Exts.P5 and P8 complaints.

(3.) The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations and contending as follows:- The premises were given on rent as per agreement dtd. 17/8/2021, but the same was cancelled by the petitioner himself, as he was not in a position to afford payment of rent. Ext.R5(a) is the letter issued by the petitioner/tenant to the Secretary of the