Disposed

Rajendran v. S.R. Rathina Selvi

Madras HC20 Jan 2014CRP(MD)/80/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed the trial court to number and decide a returned application seeking an injunction and police protection for a school run by tenants. The court also directed the police to provide protection to petitioners who were dispossessed of school property by the landlord. The revision petition was disposed of with these directions without requiring fresh notice on the absent r

What did the court decide?

Direction to the police to provide protection to petitioners; direction to the trial court to number and decide the returned application on merits.

Rajendran Vs S.R. Rathina Selvi — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.01.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.80 of 2014

¶6

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

1.Rajendran

¶8

2.Vimala ..Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶9

-vs-

¶10

S.R.Rathinaselvi ..Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

¶11

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate, Keeranur to take the unnumbered I.A.SR.No.111 of 2014 dated 08.01.2014 in O.S.No.41 of 2012 on file at once and pass orders thereon on merits immediately.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ganapathisubramanian

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Plaintiffs are before this Court seeking a direction to the Trial Court to number the returned I.A.SR.No.111 of 2014 dated 08.01.2014, which has been filed seeking interim injunction and police protection to run the school.

¶15

Notice was ordered to the respondent through Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station. The Inspector of Police, Viralimalai, is present before the Court and filed an affidavit stating that the petitioners are the tenants and running the school in the petition premises under the respondent, namely, Rathinaselvi. The relatives of the respondent demolished the compound-wall and bathroom of the school.

¶16

It is also informed by the police that the respondent is not in her residence and she left. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already sent notice through RPAD on 17.01.2014. It is evident that the respondent is deliberately not available in the premises to avoid Court notices. Hence, no useful purpose will be achieved by ordering fresh notice. Hence order is passed in the Civil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Revision Petition itself.

¶17

¶18

As long as the petitioners are under the occupation of the school as tenants, they can only be dispossessed as per law. It is evident from the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police that the respondent and their men demolished the compound-wall and bathroom of the school which is being run by the petitioners. It is also evident that the petitioners have already given a complaint in this regard and the same has also been registered. When a complaint has been given, it is the bounden duty of the police to give police protection to the person, who is lawfully enjoying the property. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the police to give police protection to the petitioners to run the school.

¶19

As far as the returned I.A.SR.No.111 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioner sought for police protection for the purpose of running the School. The said petition is maintainable as the respondent, as evident from the police report, trespassed into the School and demolished a portion of the property. Therefore, police protection is necessary, especially when the children are studying in the School. If the petitioners are not permitted to run the School, it will go against the interest of public and also the children. Therefore, the petitioners are permitted to re-present the above I.A.SR.No.111 of 2014. On such re-presentation, the trial Court is directed to number and pass appropriate orders. Till the order is passed by the trial Court, there shall be a direction to the police to give police protection.

¶20

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur.

¶27

2.The Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station, Viralimalai.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.P.Ganapathy Subramanian, Advocate, in SR. No.3347.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

skn msm 22.01.2014 p2/4c

Rajendran v. S.R. Rathina Selvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran v. S.R. Rathina Selvi

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

C. Ravichandran, Vs M. Sivagnanam

G.Sundarrajulu, Vs S.Muzaffar Basha

S. Kamala, Vs Hemalatha

V.Moni Vs the Assistant Executive

K.Raju Vs Maruthammal

R. Balasubramanian, Vs S. Sethukarai Nadar