V JEYACHANDRAN ALIAS CHANDRAN Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PADMANABHAPURAM KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the preliminary order passed by the 1st respondent under Sec. 145(1) of Criminal Procedure Code dated 1.3.2002.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE petitioner is running a hotel in the name and style of ?Hotel Ashok Bhavan? at Shop No. 19, Thingal Nagar Bus Stand. THE 4th respondent's father late Ramakrishnan Potti was the leaseholder of the said shop and after his demise, the 4th respondent succeeded the leasehold right. On 1.11.1998, the 4th respondent sublet the shop to the petitioner and he paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as an advance and it was agreed to pay Rs. 130 per day as rent. THE petitioner was regular in payment of rent and he had also spent Rs.3,25,000 for the infrastructure. During December 2000. there was misunderstanding between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and thereafter, the 4th respondent filed O.S. No. 178 of 2000 before Sub Court, Padmanabapuram for declaration that he has the right of exclusive possession for conducting hotel business in the said shop. He also filed I.A. No.354 of 2000 for interim injunction and obtained ad-interim injunction on 1.12.2000. After receiving the notice, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the Commissioner after inspection also submitted a report that the staff of the hotel are paid only by the petitioner and the movables are belonging to him.

(3.) POINT:It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is running a hotel under the name and style of ?Hotel Ashok Bhavan? at shop No. 19, Thingal Nagar Bus Stand, which belongs to Thingal Nagar Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District. This property was said to have been taken on lease by the petitioner from the 4th respondent under a lease deed dated 1.11.1998 and he parted with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 by way of advance and the rent per day was Rs. 130. The petitioner had also spent a sum of Rs.3,25,000 for infrastructure. It appears that there was misunderstanding between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No. 178 of 2000 before Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram for a declaration that he alone has got the exclusive right of possession for conducting the hotel business in the shop and he also filed I.A.No. 354 of 2000 and obtained ad-interim injunction also. Only thereafter, the petitioner filed another suit O.S. No.22 of 2002 before the District Munsif Court, Eraniel for permanent injunction relating to the very same property.