Dismissed

T. T. Abdul Gafoor v. M. Kuttimammad

Kerala HC15 Oct 2020WP(C)/16837/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged police interference in a civil lease dispute alleging illegal eviction. The Court held police action was misconceived, directed parties to civil courts, and emphasized police must act only under the Police Act 2011 if genuine fear of offence arises.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; police directed not to interfere in civil dispute unless cognizable offence is imminently likely.

T. T. Abdul Gafoor Vs M. Kuttimammad — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 23RD ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16837 OF 2020(D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T. T. ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT KARADI PARAMBIL, P. O. VELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE - 673 016.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1 M. KUTTIMAMMAD, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, RESIDING AT MUNDAMBRA HOUSE, STAPINKUNNIL, P. O. KARAKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM - 676123.

¶11

2 JAMSHID V.,AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. ABBAS, RESIDING AT JANAKI, NELLIKUNNU ROAD, P. O. KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE - 673 010.

¶12

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶13

4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, P. O. MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

¶14

5 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, P.O. MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S R2 BY ADV. SMT.VEENA HARI

¶16

SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.16837 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

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

¶22

WP(C).No.16837 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

WP(C).No.16837 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that a complaint was received by the 5th respondent that a law and order situation is likely to arise. He summoned the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent. After interaction, it was found that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the matter is being considered by the civil courts. Since the police had no role, the parties were directed to exhaust their remedies before the civil court itself. The 5th respondent gave necessary instructions to the parties to maintain law and order. It is

¶31

WP(C).No.16837 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

submitted that the police have no intention to interfere with the disputes. The said submission is recorded.

¶34

I have considered the submissions. Evidently, there are

¶35

serious disputes between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondents 1 and 2 on the other. Various proceedings are pending before the civil court as well. From the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, it is apparent that the parties were summoned by the 5th respondent on being informed about the likelihood of the disputes culminating in the commission of a cognizable offence. After recording their statement, the 5th respondent has realised that the police have no role and that the matter is in seisin of the civil court. The submission to that effect made by the learned Government pleader has been recorded by this Court. In that view of the matter, the apprehension of the petitioner that the 5th respondent would use his might and force on the petitioner to accede to the demands of the respondents 1 and 2 appears to be misconceived. At any rate, the 5th respondent shall not interfere in such disputes and the parties shall be directed to seek recourse from the civil court. However, if a complaint is received, or if the 5th respondent has genuine information of the likelihood of commission of an offence, he can act within the limits

¶36

WP(C).No.16837 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

prescribed under Sections 38, 39 and 63 of the Police Act, 2011 and in tune with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶39

With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

DSV

¶44

WP(C).No.16837 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF PLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AS O.S.26/2020 DATED 5.3.2020.

¶49

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.26/2020 DATED 24.06.2020.

¶50

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4.

¶51

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F12/5620/2020 DATED 04.02.2020

¶53

EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A1386/2020/ACFS (KOZHIKODE) DATED 25.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, FOOD SAFETY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

¶54

EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKINGS SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT POLICE ON 15.07.2020

¶55

EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

¶56

/TRUE COPY/

¶57

P.A. TO JUDGE

T. T. Abdul Gafoor v. M. Kuttimammad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. T. Abdul Gafoor v. M. Kuttimammad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Eshaque, Vs the District Collector

Sumesh Vs the Superintendent of Polce

Abdul Azees Vs the Inspector of Police

Jessy Roy, Vs the District Collector

Indus Towers Limited Vs the Station House Officer

The Mukkom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. F 1241 Vs the District Collector, Kozhikode/ District Magistrate, Kozhikode