Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 633 (KER)

Chandrika Amma v. Saramma

2011-06-24

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, R.BASANT

body2011
JUDGMENT Basant, J. 1. The petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 6 and 7 to afford protection to the petitioners for execution of Ext.P1 conditional order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is submitted that respondents 1 to 5 are raising illegal obstructions against the attempt of the petitioners to comply with Ext.P1 order. 2. The petitioners are the landlords of a building. Respondents 1 to 5 are tenants of different portions of the same building. There are disputes between the landlords and the tenants. There are litigations between them. Interim orders have been passed by the civil court directing maintenance of status quo and injunction against demolition of buildings pending disposal of the suit. However, the learned Magistrate had made it clear that the order of injunction shall not stand in the way of action being taken under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 3. It is further submitted that another person-not the landlords, had approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C demanding demolition of the buildings and abating threat of public nuisance. He alleged that the buildings are likely to fall and thereby cause danger to the local inhabitants. The Sub Divisional Magistrate had issued Ext.P1. That is a conditional order. Admittedly the same has not been made absolute so far. According to the petitioner, they are not interested in continuing with the said proceedings. They want to comply with Ext.P1 order. Notwithstanding the fact that it is only a conditional order, they say that they want to comply with the order. Respondents 1 to 5 are illegally obstructing the attempt of the petitioners to comply with Ext.P1 order. It is hence that they have come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 6 and 7. 4. Respondents 1 to 5 have entered appearance. They submit that the petitioners are guilty of a mala fide attempt to somehow throw the tenants out of possession. The one who had initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C is only a name lender for the landlords. The landlords in collusion with the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C are involved in an attempt to clandestinely throw the tenants out of possession by use of force. The one who had initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C is only a name lender for the landlords. The landlords in collusion with the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C are involved in an attempt to clandestinely throw the tenants out of possession by use of force. The landlords cunningly did not choose to resist the proceedings initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. As the rights of the tenants would thereby be affected, the tenants came to this Court with W.P(c) No.34524 of 2010. They prayed that their interests may be protected. A learned Single Judge of this Court by Ext.R1(a), disposed of the said Writ Petition observing that it will be open to the tenants to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and raise their contentions. Accordingly they have got impleaded in the 133 proceedings. They have resisted the prayer in the 133 proceedings. The Sub Divisional Magistrate is proceeding with the enquiry. The matter stands posted to 08.07.11. It is at this juncture that the petitioners are trying to run away with an order of police protection from this Court. At any rate, the petitioners are not entitled to invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Before the Sub Divisional Magistrate completes the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C and decides the question whether the conditional order is liable to be made absolute, the petitioners may not be armed with an order of police protection. The malafides of the landlords is clear from the circumstances, submits the learned counsel for the tenants. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The petitioners are well aware of the fact that respondents 1 to 5 have raised objections and the matter is pending consideration of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. At this juncture, even before the said proceedings are finalised and before the Sub Divisional Magistrate decides whether the conditional order must be made absolute or not, we find absolutely no merit in the prayer of the petitioners. Not only that there is no merit in the prayer, the very approach made by the petitioners smacks of mala fides. We are satisfied that the petition deserves to be dismissed. We are further satisfied that the displeasure of this Court to the course adopted by the petitioners must be reflected by an appropriate direction for payment of cost. 6. Not only that there is no merit in the prayer, the very approach made by the petitioners smacks of mala fides. We are satisfied that the petition deserves to be dismissed. We are further satisfied that the displeasure of this Court to the course adopted by the petitioners must be reflected by an appropriate direction for payment of cost. 6. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed; b) While dismissing the petition, we direct the petitioners to pay cost Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to respondents 1 to 5 (Rs.1,000/- each), within a period of 30 days from this date. If the amount is not paid by then, respondents 1 to 5 shall be at liberty to get the same executed as if it is a decree. Necessary orders/certificates shall be issued by the Registry in this regard.