JUDGMENT : The petitioner states that he is the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Waltz Hospital Private Limited, Mannarcad. The said hospital is being run in a premise taken on lease by the petitioner herein from the 1st respondent. The lease was for a period of 15 years from 15.5.2013. The petitioner states that due to the floods which ravaged the State of Kerala, the Covid restrictions and other adverse factors the hospital met with huge loss. It became next to impossible for the petitioner to continue with the business. This led to serious strain in the relationship between the landlord and tenant. 2. It is contended that the hospital was being run on the cover of the working capital availed from the Canara bank, Cosmopolitan Branch, the additional 5th respondent herein. As security for the loan, the medicines, other stock and hospital machinery are hypothecated with the bank. When it became impossible for the petitioner to run the hospital, they informed the bank that they plan to close down the hospital. The 1st respondent was informed by Ext.P5 notice of their decision to terminate the lease. However, the 1st respondent has raised some monetary claims and have been obstructing the petitioner from proceeding with the closure in an amicable manner. 3. The petitioner states that before closing the hospital, they are required to settle certain issues with the workers, creditors and other service providers. Huge amounts of medicines are also retained in the hospital. When the petitioner tried to take out the medicines and other office equipment including computers, obstruction was caused by the 1st respondent. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has lodged Ext.P6 complaint before the police seeking protection. Complaining of inaction, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions to the police to afford adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner and also for taking out the medicines, files and equipment from the premise of the hospital. 4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the intention of the petitioner in approaching this Court seeking police protection is to evade from their liability to the landlord. The rent arrears has mounted to the tune of about Rs.85 lakhs. The petitioner owes huge sums of money towards energy charges and if the amount is not paid, the landlord and the premises would be burdened. The rent arrears has mounted to the tune of about Rs.85 lakhs. The petitioner owes huge sums of money towards energy charges and if the amount is not paid, the landlord and the premises would be burdened. According to the 1st respondent, the attempt of the petitioner is to remove all the movables under the cover of an order of this Court to defeat the rights of the 1st respondent. It is contended that the 1st respondent has issued a notice demanding arrears of rent as early as on 15.12.2020 and thereafter he has instituted O.S.No.17/2021 before the Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna to restrain the petitioner and his men from removing the machineries etc from the hospital building without discharging the arrears of rent and other liabilities. It is further stated that a Rent Control Petition has also been filed seeking to evict the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent. 5. A statement has been filed by the additional 5th respondent wherein it is stated that a working capital loan for a sum of Rs.48 lakhs was granted to the petitioner on 16.11.2013. Later, an additional amount of Rs.14,40,000/-was sanctioned. As on 10.3.2021, the total outstanding to the bank is Rs.66,56,765/-. It is further stated that as security, the medicines, other stocks and hospital machinery are hypothecated. It is stated that the moving of the hypothecated stocks and machinery from the hospital can be permitted only if the petitioner continues the hospital service. According to the said respondent, if the petitioner intends to close the business, the entire loan and arrears will have to be closed. 6. In the statement filed by the 6th respondent it is stated that the registered consumer is the first respondent herein. The arrears as on date due to the KSEBL is Rs.3,34,116/-and Rs.16,040/-towards surcharge. 7. The petitioner has filed a reply denying the contentions raised by the 1st respondent. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced. In the case on hand, the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and also for taking out the medicines worth about Rs.10 lakhs, office files and office equipment from the premise of the hospital. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.3 of 2021 detailing the stock of medicines retained in the premises. 9. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.3 of 2021 detailing the stock of medicines retained in the premises. 9. The records reveal that the landlord has already moved the Civil Court and sought for an injunction restraining the petitioner from moving the goods without clearing off the arrears. I also find that the Bank has also filed a statement contending that the hospital machineries are hypothecated with the Bank and without their consent, the same cannot be taken out. 10. Faced with the said submissions, Sri.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the main grievance of the petitioner is that medicines worth Rs.10 lakhs retained in the hospital will be rendered useless, if the same is not taken out in an expeditious manner, particularly since the electricity supply has been disconnected by the KSEBL. He submits that the value of the medicine shall be deposited with the bank so that the burden can be reduced. 11. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the bank submitted that the stock is hypothecated with the bank and they have no grievance if the amount is deposited with the bank. The Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent fairly conceded that no one would be benefited if the medicines are rendered useless and he cannot justifiably raise any objection to the said request. 12. Having considered the facts and the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to take out the medicines kept in the Hospital on condition that the value of the same as determined by the stockist/dealer would be deposited in the 5th respondent Bank. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the additional 5th respondent to depute an officer of the Bank to oversee the valuation and handing over of the medicines kept in the petitioner hospital. The value obtained from the return of the medicine shall be deposited with the additional 5th respondent Bank. To ensure that the valuation and handing over is peaceful, the 2nd respondent shall depute his officers. On the cover of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner shall not remove any other item such as furniture, files or computers. As far as those items are concerned, the parties shall raise their claims and contentions before the Civil Court where litigations are pending. This writ petition is disposed of.