AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Mala, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioners to run their business in S. No. 86/12, Door Nos. 84, 85 Old Door No. P.B-3149 in Pattukottai Town, Thanjavur District by changing the damaged roof based on the petitioner''s complaint dated 31.08.2015.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are doing business by running a provisional store in Pattukottai Town in the above mentioned property. The land is owned by Madhushree Akkabai Ammani Chatram and the grandmother of the petitioners, namely, Lakshmiammal, entered into a lease agreement with VRy. Nagoji Ramachandra Kottigay Rao, the then Trustee of the said Trust in the year 1940.
2.1. After that, she constructed four shops in the leased land, roofed by thatched shed and asbestos. She died in the year 1974 and the petitioners'' father namely Pandarinathan had set up a residence there and continued to run the business. The E.B. service connection and water tax receipt stand in the name of the petitioners'' father, namely Pandarinathan.
2.2. Even today, the rent is being collected by the power agent. After his death, dispute with regard to the ownership arose between the respondents 3 and 4 and suits in O.S. Nos. 331 of 2009 and 330 of 2009 were also filed and pending before the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai, to decide who is the Trustee of the said Trust.
2.3. He further submits that on 26.07.2015 a fire accident took place nearby the petitioners'' shop, which caused much damage to the petitioners'' shop. By utilizing the situation, the third respondent is trying to usurp the shops with the help of his henchmen. Therefore, the petitioners preferred a complaint to the second respondent on 28.06.2015 and since the complaint was not received by the 2nd respondent saying that it is a civil dispute, a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 120 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai along with I.A. No. 370 of 2015 for injunction was filed and the petitioners also obtained an order of interim injunction not to disturb the petitioners'' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the disposal of the suit.
2.4. Now, the petitioners are willing to continue their business by altering the roof. The third respondent is threatening the petitioners with the help of their henchmen to vacate the shops and residence. Therefore, the petitioners sought for the police protection from the respondents 1 and 2 by way of representation on 31.08.2015 and since no order has been passed by the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court.
2.5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits that the rental receipt has been filed and the petitioners are in possession and an interim order was also granted by the civil forum on 18.08.2015. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to police protection. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the judgment in Radhika Sri Hari and Another Vs. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, '' which reads as follows:
"''7''. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to report of the committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(3D) No. 42, Home dated 30.06.2008 towards review of the system of treating complaints relating to money and land matters and to suggest a legally acceptable methodology. The report of such committee touching upon several issues, was accepted by Government. Having done so, under G.O. Ms. No. 1580 Home (POL VII) Department dated 24.11.2008, the Director General of Police, was required to circulate the report along with the 14 point guidelines annexed to such Government order to police officers/stations for appropriate adherence. Under C. No. 43/CRB/CSP/2008 dated 08.12.2008, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub-Urban, has caused communications to all Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Inspector of Police for necessary action. Guideline 11 issued by the committee reads as follows:
"11. When police protection is sought for the implementation of a civil court order is should be given readily. Police should not insist on a specific court direction to give police protection."
2.6. Learned counsel also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No. 1511 of 2014 dated 22.09.2014 in paragraphs 1 to 4 and prayed for orders.
"The petitioner contends that he is the tenant in respect of the premises Door No. 36 A, Rice Mill Road, in front of Thuvarankurichi Bus stand, Madurai Main Road. He is running a Bakery under the name and style of Trichy Best Bakery and a Tea Stall. For the past 14 years, the petitioner is running the said shops. He already paid a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- as advance. The monthly rent payable is Rs. 7,000/-. When the respondents attempted to interfere with the petition premises, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 291 of 2014 and got interim injunction in I.A. No. 609 of 2014. Even thereafter, the proposed accused has went upon giving the trouble to the petitioner. Hence, the complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 07.08.2014. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has come before this Court.
Heard the parties and perused the records.
It is seen that the petitioner is running the Bakery about 14 years and he obtained an order of injunction on 05.08.2014.
In view of the running of the Bakery for so many years and also injunction granted on 05.08.2014 by the Civil Court, there will be a direction to the respondent police to give police protection to the petitioner to conduct his business peacefully at shop No. 36 A, Rice Mill Road, in front of Thuvarankurichi Bus stand, Madurai Main Road, and also to the life and limb of the petitioner".
At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that the respondents have received representations from both the tenant and the landlord, and a CSR number has been given and the enquiry is going on.
The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that he is a Trustee and that a civil suit is also pending. In the suit, he has not filed any application for injunction to put up construction/repair the room which was damaged during the fire accident and that no application has also been filed for injunction not to modify the construction. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the typed set of papers, it appears that the property belongs to the Madhushree Akkabai Ammani Chatram Trust and the third respondent is a hereditary trustee and a suit is also pending. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the owners of the property. According to him, they are the lessees under the Madhushree Akkabai Ammani Chatram Trust. Now, it is also an admitted fact that there was a fire accident in that property and the roof alone has been damaged. But herein it is pertinent to note that the petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No. 120 of 2015 for injunction restraining the third respondent and their men not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In that complaint itself, it was stated that the properties belong to the trustee. After the fire accident only, the suit has been filed and at the time of filing of suit, no relief for making construction has been sought, but only an interim order was obtained not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, against which C.M.A. is filed and pending.
It is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the petitioner in Radhika Sri Hari and Another Vs. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, . The above citation in paragraph ''7'' is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above citation, the property dispute has been settled and second appeal ended in finality. So the above decision is not applicable to the present case.
In another judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No. 15111 of 2014 dated 22.09.2014, there was no dispute over the tenancy in respect of the premises and a suit was also pending, in which, an interim order has been obtained. Hence, this Court has held that the police protection ought to be given.
But, in the present case on hand, after the fire accident, even though a suit for bare injunction was filed, no relief in respect of alteration in the roof or doing the business, has been sought. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek for any police protection. Hence, the above two citations are not applicable to the present case. Thus, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioners to approach the civil forum.