Usha Jacob v. The State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 11587 of 2015 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- USHA JACOB, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.V.G.LEELAMMA, HOUSE NO.79/KP XVIII/1160 MAMATHA NAGAR, MARKET ROAD, KAZHAKOOTTAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SMT.R.BINDU SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAZHAKOOTTAM CIRCLE, KAZHAKOOTTAM-695 582.
6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM STATION OFFICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM-695 582.
7. SATHI @ MARKET SATHI, KATTUKULAM, KAZHAKOOTTAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.
8. NAZEER, S/O.MOHAMMED ELIAS, SULOOSE MANZIL, VADAKKUMBHAGAM KAZHAKOOTTAM P.O., VETTUROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.
R1 TO R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 11587 of 2015 (W) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
---------------------------------------- EXT.P1.
TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1041/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM.
EXT.P2.
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.1041/2010 DATED 29/3/2012 OF THE 2ND ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. EXT.P3.
TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1755/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. EXT.P4.
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/9/2013 IN OS NO.1755/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. EXT.P5.
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/6/2012 IN RCP NO.36/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P6.
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND, 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 18/3/2015. EXT.P7.
THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P6 REPRESENTATION. EXT.P8(a).
TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT INDICATING ISSUANCE OF EXT.P6. EXT.P8(b).
TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT INDICATING ISSUANCE OF EXT.P6. EXT.P8(c).
TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT INDICATING ISSUANCE OF EXT.P6. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL --------------------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J.
& A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 11587 of 2015 (W) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2015
J U D G M E N T
A.M.Shaffique, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that she, being the tenant of the 8th respondent, is being threatened and will be evicted from the tenanted premises without resorting to the provisions of law.
2.
It is admitted by the petitioner that the landlord had already filed Rent Control Petition for eviction of the petitioner, and the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the premises, against which an appeal has been filed and it came to be dismissed. The petitioner is awaiting certified copy of the judgment for filing revision before the High Court and during the interregnum period the petitioner apprehends that the 8th respondent may use force and evict the petitioner. The petitioner also submits that the 8th respondent had permitted certain
W.P.(C) No. 11587/2015 -2persons to conduct market in the premises, which had been avoided by interference of this Court in a separate writ petition. 3.
Though, complaints were given to the Police alleging threat by the 8th respondent, no action has been taken in the matter and accordingly the petitioner has approached this Court. 4.
If at all, the 8th respondent has obtained an order of eviction against the petitioner, we do not think that the 8th respondent can evict the petitioner other than by due process of law. The petitioner complains that there is threat to her life. If there is any such complaint, we are of the view that the Police has to look into the matter and do the needful. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed. Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
jjj