M. Sohanraj vs Deputy Commissioner of Police, North (Law and Order), Egmore, Madras and Another

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to issue directions to the respondents to give

protection and safety to his life and the life of his family members and their properties and peaceful living at No. 27 Ashtapujam Road, Madras 112

(within the limits of G-1 police station).

In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, it is alleged that the petitioner is a tenant at No. 27 Ashtapujam Road, Madras 112, that he was in

possession of the ground floor for his Pawn Broker shop, the first floor for his residential purposes and the second floor as godown to keep his

business articles, that one Ramnathan Chettiar (since deceased) was the owner of the building and that after his death, his legal representatives

succeeded him. It is further alleged that misunderstandings arose between him and the landlord and on account of that there were frequent quarrels,

that in respect of that complaints were given to the police, but no action was taken. The reason for the quarrel. According to the petitioner, is the

failure of the petitioner to pay the enhanced rate of rent, as desired by the owner. The petitioner was also compelled to lock the doors of his house

in the first floor and second floor and temporarily to leave the said premises and thereafter he was not allowed to enter into the said premises. The

matter was reported to the Inspector of Police. G-1 police, Crime and Law and Order, and that was also not considered. Thereafter, a private

complaint was filed before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was forwarded u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the police for registering the case

and investigating the same. But not progress was made in the matter. The petitioner has no other remedy except to move this court for the reliefs

prayed for.

It is represented by the learned Public Prosecutor that on 8-9-1982, the petitioner gave a complaint to G-1 police Law and Order, alleging that

the house owner Ramanathan Chettiar has trespassed into the property and taken away properties valued at Rs. 15,000/-, and the same was

registered under S. 448 IPC in Cr. No. 1681 of 1982. After investigation, on 16-9-1982, the complaint was referred as false. Again another

complaint was given to the Detective Sub-Inspector of Police, G-1 police station of loss of gold chain and necklace and other jewels. That was

also, registered in Cr. No. 1743/82 on 30-9-1982. The above was referred to as of civil nature. Another private complaint was referred by VI

Metropolitan Magistrate, under S. 156(3) regarding loss of brass aluminium vessels and bed carpets. The same was registered in Cr. No. 1200 of

1983, under sections 454 and 380 IPC. That was also referred as mistake of fact. It is also represented by the learned Public Prosecutor that the

referred notices were not served in the first two cases and in respect of the third case the referred charge was served on 4-12-1983, and that at

present no complaint is pending investigation before the police.

Notice was also taken to the legal representatives of the landlord and they also entered appearance through an advocate.

It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition and also from the representation made by the counsel on both sides, that the dispute is

between the petitioner, who is the tenant, and the landlord and that the proceedings are pending before the civil court. Learned counsel for the

petitioner produced before this court an order in CMP No. 563 of 1984 in CRP 152 of 1984, wherein the eviction proceedings against the

petitioner were stayed pending disposal of the civil revision petition. As such, it is clear that the eviction of the petitioner has been stayed and the

petitioner is found to be in possession of the property. It is open to the parties to work out their rights before the concerned forum for the

necessary reliefs. But so far as this case is concerned. I am of the view that in case there is any trouble in the enjoyment of the property, it is open

to the petitioner to prefer a complaint before the concerned police and they are directed to register the case and investigate the same and dispose

of the same according to law and give all necessary protection which is required. This petition is ordered accordingly.

Order accordingly.