AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action
against the respondents 3 to 6 on the basis of the complaint/representation submitted by the petitioner dated 4.2.2010.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Company doing retail trading services in respect of FMCGS and has a large number of
outlets all over India and it is providing goods at discounted price by the process of direct marketing by obviating the role of middlemen. After
September, 2008, the Company expanded rapidly with 1600 outlets and ran into deep financial crunch and for restructuring the Company by
closing certain branches, necessary schemes have been placed under the provisions of Section 391 Companies Act, 1956 before this Court and
the said company petition is pending.
The 6th respondent filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2009 seeking eviction in respect of a non-residential premises at Door No.
155 Medavakkam Main Road, Keelkattalai, Chennai-117. The 6th respondent and two others (namely the wife and mother of the 6th
respondent) received a refundable security deposit of Rs. 1.50 lakhs from the petitioner and agreed to receive rent at Rs. 9,500/- per month.
According to the petitioner, in the rent control proceedings, the petitioner has not received any notice till date. During routine verification of the said
premises on 1.2.2010, it was found that the locks at the property were replaced by the 6th respondent by breaking the lock open and forcibly
entering into the premises by approaching the third respondent Police. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the breaking was made under
the supervision of the Police and Tahsildar. The Police refused to give any further details and thereafter the petitioner applied for the copies of the
documents under the RTI Act. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the 6th respondent filed a complaint before the
third respondent Police Station stating that the petitioner had not paid the rents and therefore the lock had to be opened and move the materials
available in the premises. The third respondent instead of directing the 6th respondent to move the competent Civil Court, registered CSR No. 566
of 2009 on 28.12.2009 and sought for support from the 5th respondent Tahsildar for supervising the breaking. The 5th respondent by order dated
7.1.2010 provided staff for breaking.
It is the case of the petitioner that when the competent Court seized of the matter in an eviction proceeding, the 6th respondent with the
connivance of the respondents 3 to 5 usurped possession of the premises and stolen the assets worth Rs. 15 lakhs for which the petitioner is
independently taking action. It is also stated in the affidavit that in RCOP No. 4 of 2009 an exparte order of eviction was obtained by the 6th
respondent on 23.12.2009, based on the exparte order, the 6th respondent had approached the third respondent and broke open the premises.
On 4.2.2010, the petitioner submitted representation before the first and second respondents and requested to take action against the respondents
3 to 5. Petitioner also requested to register FIR against the said persons and prayed for restoration of the possession. Because of the said action of
the respondents 3 to 5 who acted in collusion with the 6th respondent in over reaching the Court proceedings, petitioner has filed the writ petition
with the above prayer.
The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit by contending that the writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner Company took the premises
measuring an extent of 950 sq.ft. in the ground floor in Door No. 155 Medavakkam Main Road, Keelkattalai, Chennai-117 on monthly rent from
the month of June, 2002 for running supermarket by agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 9,000/- per month and also agreed to pay increased rent at 15%
over three years. Petitioner was to pay the increased rent of Rs. 10,350/- per month from 1.6.2005 and Rs. 11,902.50 per month from 1.6.2008.
Petitioner was not regular in payment of rent and therefore there was arrears of rent of Rs. 50,051.44 and the 6th respondent issued a notice in
November, 2008 and called upon the petitioner to quit and surrender the premises, but even thereafter the petitioner has not paid the arrears. The
premises was under closure for several months and the petitioner having defaulted payment of rent for more than 16 months, the petitioner filed
eviction petition on the ground of willful default in paying rents in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur. After
several notices and publication in the newspaper, the petitioner did not chose to appear and eviction was ordered on 23.12.2009 and thereafter
petitioner approached the police and took possession without filing execution petition as the premises was under lock for several months. At the
request of the petitioner, the Inspector of Police, Law and Order requested the Tahsildar, Tambaram, to issue necessary orders. The Tahsildar
Sholinganallur, who was in charge of Tahsildar, Tambaram, directed the Village Administrative Officer, Madipakkam, to be present at the time of
taking possession and on 9.1.2010, the 6th respondent took possession in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and Police Officials
by taking inventories. The articles of the petitioner were kept in a separate room, which is in the 6th respondent''s custody. Payment of Rs. 1.50
lakhs towards advance is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that due to non-
payment of electricity charges, the electricity supply to the premises was disconnected.
When the writ petition was posted for admission, the learned Government Advocate has taken notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5.
The third respondent filed counter affidavit on 5.3.2010 and stated that the 6th respondent presented a petition on 28.12.2009 stating that he
had leased out his premises to the petitioner and the petitioner defaulted in paying rents for 16 months and kept the premises under lock. The said
complaint was taken as C.S.R. No. 566/2009 as per the instructions of the Inspector of Police, Crime, and the matter being civil nature, the 4th
respondent directed the same to be forwarded to the Revenue Authorities by a covering letter dated 28.12.2009. Thereafter on 7.1.2010 in the
presence of the Village Administrative Officer, list of articles were taken and on 9.1.2010, Police bandobust was given and eviction was carried
out and the petition given by the 6th respondent dated 28.12.2009 was closed. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not
approached the third respondent by giving any complaint and based on the petition given by the 6th respondent Community Service Register was
opened giving C.S.R. No. 566/2009 and therefore there is no illegality in ordering eviction.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 6th respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5.
The learned Counsel for the 6th respondent filed an additional typed set of papers containing the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of
2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur dated 23.12.2009. From the perusal of the order passed in the rent control proceedings, it is
evident that the petitioner was set exparte in the eviction petition filed u/s 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960. The said order is an exparte order. However, two months time for eviction from 23.12.2009 was granted. The order passed
in RCOP is extracted hereunder:
O R D E R
This petition is filed u/s 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to pass an order of eviction against the
respondents on the ground of willful default/owners occupation/for costs of the petition.
Orders pronounced. Records perused. Petition claim proved. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. Eviction ordered. Time of eviction 2
months from today."" The 6th respondent has applied for copy of the order on 6.1.2010 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur,
bearing Copy Application No. 17/2010. Stamp papers were called for on 27.1.2010 and remarks were furnished on 29.1.2010. Copy of the
order was made ready on 19.2.2010 and copy was delivered to the 6th respondent on 23.2.2010.
From the above narrated facts it is evident that the petitioner was set exparte in the rent control proceedings and an exparte order of eviction
was passed on 23.12.2009 in RCOP No. 4 of 2009 and the learned Rent Controller granted two months time for vacating the premises and the
two months period expired only on 23.2.2010. The 6th respondent being a party to the proceedings, particularly when he has participated in the
proceedings by giving exparte evidence as PW-1, is very much aware of the time granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises.
Admittedly the petitioner was forcibly evicted at the instance of the 6th respondent with the help of respondents 3 to 5 on 9.1.2010. The
forcible eviction of the petitioner from the premises by breaking open the lock with police protection and in the presence of the Village
Administrative Officer was made on the basis of the complaint given by the 6th respondent dated 28.12.2009, which was registered as C.S.R.
No. 566/2009 by the third respondent stating it as a Community Service Register. It is also beyond doubt from the said register that the 6th
respondent has not produced the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. Even according to the 6th respondent, the order passed in the
eviction petition was furnished to him only on 23.2.2010. However, the third respondent registered the complaint given by the 6th respondent as
CSR 566/2009 on 28.12.2009 itself and initiated action without knowing the actual order passed in the eviction proceeding. The 5th respondent
also gave direction to the Village Administrative Officer to make inventories by passing an order on 7.1.2010. The said order was also passed
without knowing the actual order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner. Thus it is beyond doubt that not only the 6th
respondent but also the respondents 3 to 5 acted without any material viz., the order of eviction passed against the petitioner.
As stated supra, the time granted by the Rent Controller to vacate the premises expired only on 23.2.2010. Therefore the cause of action for
initiating eviction proceedings arises either by filing execution petition or to get police aid will arise only after 23.2.2010, if the eviction order dated
23.12.2009 was not set aside or stayed by any appellate forum. Admittedly the petitioner was thrown out from the premises on 9.1.2010 and the
premises was locked by the 6th respondent. The said action of the 6th respondent which was carried out by the aid of the respondents 3 to 5 is
clearly unauthorised and interfering with the administration of justice. The respondents 3 to 6 have not only violated the eviction order passed on
23.12.2009, but also at the instance of the 6th respondent, respondents 3 to 5 have interfered with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the
6th respondent, which is totally prohibited as the civil dispute between the parties can be resolved only through the forum created for the civil
dispute, here in this case the Rent Control Court. Hence the action of the 6th respondent in approaching the third respondent and the consequential
registration of the complaint given by the 6th respondent on 28.12.2009 by registering it as CSR No. 566/2009 by the third respondent and the
consequential direction issued to the Tahsildar and as well as the direction issued by the Tahsildar to the Village Administrative Officer on 7.1.2010
and the eviction carried out with police bandobust on 9.1.2010 cannot be treated as valid as the same are contrary to the order passed by the
Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2009 dated 23.12.2009. For execution of the order passed in rent control proceedings, execution petition
can be filed u/s 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed appropriate application to set aside the exparte order
before the Rent Controller and the same is pending. It is up to the petitioner to approach the Rent Controller to seek appropriate orders as the
petitioner requires and the 6th respondent to contest the same in a manner known to law.
This case is a classic example of Police and Revenue officials interfering in civil matters. The Supreme Court and this Court are repeatedly
giving directions not to interfere in civil disputes between private individuals as adjudication of civil disputes can be made only through courts
created for the said purpose and the Court orders are to be obeyed by all concerned, whether it is Revenue Authorities, Police or private litigants.
In the decision reported in 2007 (6) Supreme 97 (The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah) the Honourable Supreme
Court held that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. In paragraph 31, it
is held thus,
We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any
reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom
such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But
it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court.
In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice.
The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.
The tendency to convert the civil disputes into criminal prosecution is also condemned by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Indian Oil
Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, . In paragraph 10 (in AIR) of the Judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:
...it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on
account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such
a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a
person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G.
Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . this Court observed: (SCC p.643, para 8)
It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut
of other remedies available in law....
In this case the remedy open to the 6th respondent was to file execution petition u/s 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960, after the expiry of time granted to vacate and the Rent Controller, if necessary, could have issued appropriate directions to the Police
to give protection to execute the order passed in RCOP. Thus, from any angle the action of the 6th respondent as well as the conduct of the
respondents 2 to 5 cannot be justified.
Since the action initiated by the 6th respondent, which was completed on 9.1.2010 is found as improper, the petitioner has made out a case
for issuing a writ. Consequently, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 4.2.2010 seeking
appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs.