AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Mala, J.—This petition has been filed to direct Respondents 1 and 2 to give sufficient protection to the Petitioner and his family members to enter into the house in Door No. 9, Ponni Nagar, Bye Pass Road, Madurai, which is in the possession and control of the 3rd Respondent and to protect the Petitioner to live peacefully at that house by continuing the tenancy till the disposal of civil proceedings.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a tenant under the 3rd Respondent for more than three years; the monthly rent is Rs. 1,500/-; suddenly in order to extract more money, the 3rd Respondent started giving trouble to the Petitioner and tried to evict him by using force; hence the Petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 636 of 2009 before the learned Additional District Judge''s Court, Madurai, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the third Respondent herein from in any way evicting him from the property by unlawful means, except under due process of law; the third Respondent also has filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 156 of 2009 before the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Madurai Town; while the cases are pending, the 2nd Respondent intervened and took the Petitioner and his relatives and detained them in police station on 09.12.2009; in order to escape from the clutches of the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner executed an undertaking, agreeing to vacate the premises on or before 28.01.2010 and the undertaking was obtained by force, under threat and coercion and it is not a valid document.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submitted that after the said undertaking, the Petitioner approached the 1st Respondent and gave a complaint and when the Petitioner and his family members were away from the house, the 2nd Respondent joined with the 3rd Respondent, locked the gate of the compound wall of the house; when they returned back, they found that the gate was locked and asked the 3rd Respondent to open the same, for which he refused to open the gate; as such from 20.01.2010, the Petitioner and his family members are forced to stay away; they are not able to enter into the house and use their own things for their day-to-day needs and hence, the Petitioner has come forward with the present Crl.O.P. for the relief stated above.
The third Respondent appeared through his counsel and filed a counter affidavit, stating that he admitted that the Petitioner as his tenant; the Petitioner has not paid the rent after November 2008; the Petitioner was doing a wholesale vegetable business in Central Market and running canteen in Cinema Theatre and for that purposes, the Petitioner used to dump all vegetables and grocery in the third Respondent''s property; the Petitioner used to shout in filthy language in intoxication mood during night hours; there are other tenants in the ground floor and 1st floor and the Petitioner caused nuisance to them and hence, the third Respondent filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 156 of 2009 against the Petitioner for wilful default, nuisances and for his own use and occupation.
Learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent further submitted that after filing of the R.C.O.P., the Petitioner has filed O.S. No. 636 of 2009 for permanent injunction from evicting him without following due process of law, which is pending without granting interim order and the Petitioner has continuously created trouble and hindrance to the other tenants and on 04.11.2009, the Petitioner has attacked the third Respondent and criminally intimidated him and hence, the third Respondent has given a complaint against the Petitioner before the 2nd Respondent; since no action has been taken, the third Respondent filed a petition in Crl.O.P. No. 9894 of 2009 on the file of this Court, seeking a direction to take action on his petition, dated 04.11.2009 and this Court, by order dated 12.11.2009, directed the 2nd Respondent to register a case, if there is any cognizable offence made out and if it is a fit case to be investigated and to proceed further in accordance with law.
Learned Counsel for the third Respondent further submitted that in pursuance of the said direction, the 2nd Respondent police summoned the Petitioner for enquiry and at that time, the Petitioner agreed to settle the dispute between them and the Petitioner also agreed to withdraw the suit filed by him in O.S. No. 636 of 2009 and voluntarily gave an undertaking in writing that he would vacate the premises of the third Respondent before 28.01.2010 and accordingly, he vacated and shifted to his newly constructed house situated at Kochadai at Madurai and handed over the possession to the third Respondent as per the said undertaking; the third Respondent also agreed to withdraw the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 156 of 2009 and when he approached the Petitioner for withdrawing the said suit, he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for withdrawal of his suit; since the third Respondent did not accept the demand of the Petitioner, he has come forward with the present petition for the above stated relief and hence, the third Respondent pray for dismissal of the Crl.O.P.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that there is a civil dispute between both the parties and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Crl.O.P.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent.
While considering the rival submissions made by both sides, it is seen that, admittedly, the property belongs to the 3rd Respondent and there was a tenancy agreement between the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent has filed R.C.O.P. No. 156 of 2009 for eviction on the ground of willful default, nuisances and for personal occupation. Per contra, the Petitioner herein has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 636 of 2009 for permanent injunction, but, admittedly, no interim order of injunction has been granted. Admittedly, there is one undertaking letter, dated 09.12.2009 given before Police. It cannot be decided in this Crl.O.P. as to whether the said undertaking was obtained by force or threat or it was given voluntarily. The case of the Petitioner is that the document was obtained by threat/coercion, but as per the version of the 3rd Respondent, it is voluntary. The genuineness of the document can be decided only at the time of trial. Furthermore, whether the Petitioner has been evicted by the third Respondent from the premises by threat or not, has got to be decided only in the civil suit, since there is civil dispute between both the parties. In such circumstances, it is not fair on the part of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to give police protection.
It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner herein has earlier filed a petition in Crl.O.P. No. 12072 of 2009, stating that he has given a complaint on 24.01.2009 and since no case has been registered, he sought for a direction. The said Crl.O.P. No. 12072 of 2009, was disposed of, with a direction that the Petitioner can invoke the provisions of Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. A perusal of the plaint in O.S. No. 636 of 2009 would show that the Petitioner (Plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the third Respondent/Defendant and his men, from in any way evicting the Petitioner/Plaintiff and his family members from the suit property forcibly by unlawful means, except under due process of law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to the telephone bills produced by the Petitioner for the months of February to August 2010 and submitted that the telephone is situated in the suit property and it is not yet shifted. While perusing the same, only minimum charge has been mentioned in the bills. Merely because the Petitioner has not shifted the telephone, the telephone bills will not help him.
Furthermore, it is a civil dispute between the parties and hence, I do not find any merits in this Crl.O.P. seeking for direction to the Respondents to give protection to enter into the house. The Petitioner can very well agitate before the Civil Courts, where the Civil Suit and R.C.O.P., as noted above, are pending. Furthermore, the question as to whether the undertaking given by the Petitioner is a voluntarily one or obtained by threat/coercion, has to be decided only before the Civil Forum and hence, I am of the considered opinion that this Crl.O.P. deserves to be dismissed.
With the above observations, the Crl.O.P. is dismissed. The Petitioner is at liberty to move before the Civil Courts and seek a remedy instead of the direction as sought for in this Crl.O.P. for protection.