A LOGANATHAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (parties referred to as found in Crl.O.P. No. 15851/2008) seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to ensure the removal of the locks put on the ground and first floor of the premises at No. 6/22, Ramakrishnan Iyer Street, West Tambaram, Chennai and restore possession of the premises to the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chinglepet in proceedings No. Na. Ka 3822/2008 C.

(2.) Such petitioner has preferred a complaint to the 1st respondent on 22.05.2008 informing that he was a tenant under the 2nd respondent and that suddenly on 22.05.2008 at around 1.00 p.m., the 2nd respondent's sons and others damaged the showcase, clothes and dress materials held inside the shop. The petitioner / complainant informs that this had been occasioned since he had refused to pay larger advance and higher rent to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner / complainant also informs of the 2nd respondent being highly influential and politically connected.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner informs that the 2nd respondent's henchmen behaved in a highly unlawful manner and damaged the furniture and other fittings put up by the petitioner in the ground floor and forcibly evicted him and threw the materials in the shop on to the street. The petitioner could not resist, since the 2nd respondent is a politically influential person. The other traders, who were eye witnesses to the atrocity were also unable to effectively help the petitioner in resisting the unlawful actions of the 2nd respondent. It is informed that on the intervention of the traders association, the complaint of the petitioner and his father was accepted. The unlawful incident is said to have taken place in broad daylight in the presence of hundreds of eye witnesses and it is further informed that such incident also received extensive coverage in the local newspapers. The 1st respondent locked the ground floor of the shop for the ostensible purpose of avoiding breach of peace and referred the matter to the RDO for enquiry under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure Taking advantage of the unruly situation, the henchmen of the 2nd respondent had placed a lock outside the 1st floor shop, though the petitioner had locked the same from inside towards protecting his material. When the petitioner sought to open the 1st floor, the 1st respondent required him to await the outcome of the reference to the RDO. Before the RDO enquiry, the 2nd respondent took the stand that the premises on the ground floor was never rented out to the petitioner, but that the petitioner had been permitted to keep a few things there for a period of two weeks during Deepavali and again in January 2008. Before the RDO, the 2nd respondent accepted the tenancy in so far as the 1st floor premises is concerned. In the proceedings before the RDO, the statement of the 2nd respondent was that the 1st floor portion of the premises had been locked only to protect the interest of the petitioner, since he had run away, leaving the premises unguarded. The same is found mentioned in the legal notice issued by the petitioner dated 14.06.2008. But, by reply thereto dated 21.06.2008, the 2nd respondent had claimed to have locked the 1st floor premises and thereby dispossessed the petitioner.