Alleging violation of the order passed by this court, dated 16.07.2013 in MP(MD)Nos.2 of 2013 in W.P.(MD)Nos.11294 to 11296 of 2013, these Contempt Petitions have been filed.
2.Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and Mr.B.Prasana Vinoth, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3.The case of the petitioners is that they were inducted as tenants in the building of the 4th respondent in the year 2007 and thereafter, the landlord without following due process of law, forcibly evicted them on 02.07.2013. A complaint was given on 03.07.2013 to the first respondent to take action against the 4th respondent. Since no action was taken, W.P(MD)Nos.11294 to 11296 of 2013 have been filed. This court, by an order, dated 16.07.2013 directed the parties to maintain status quo.
4.The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that even though the tenants were evicted on 02.07.2013 and a complaint was preferred against the landlord on 03.07.2013, but the police officials colluding with the landlord, did not take any action. Hence, the tenants filed Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.11050 to 11052 of 2013 seeking direction to the police to register a case based on the complaints dated 02.07.2013 and 03.07.2013 and only after the order passed in the above Criminal Original Petitions, a case was registered on 10.07.2013. It is further submitted that despite order of status quo, the landlord has inducted new tenants and therefore, they should be evicted.
5.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioners and the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent had not inducted the petitioners in the demised premises. Further, it is contended that the premises were let out to one T.G.Bhavanishankar Iyer and that the tenant has handed over possession to the landlord/4th respondent and subsequently, the landlord/4th respondent entered into an agreement on 10.07.2013 to induct new tenants and therefore, on the date of status quo order, the tenants were already inducted and therefore, there is no violation of the court order.
6.The learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents contended that the dispute between the petitioners and the 4th respondent is purely civil in nature and even according to the petitioners, they were dispossessed on 02.07.2013, but the status quo order in the above writ petitions was passed on 16.07.2013. There is absolutely no allegation that the respondent police officials have involved in the alleged forcible eviction of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the order of status quo dated 16.07.2013 was not communicated to the respondents till 10.09.2013, on which date the contempt notice was issued and in the meanwhile, new tenants were put in possession of the property.
7.The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioners have not made any allegation against the police officials in the complaints, dated 02.07.2013 and 03.07.2013 and that on 02.07.2013, the 4th respondent as well as the petitioners lodged complaints against each other and immediately, the police have assigned CSR Nos.195 to 198 of 2013 and after preliminary enquiry, they have registered cases.
8.It is the case of the petitioners that they were forcibly evicted by their landlord on 02.07.2013, for which complaints were given on 02.07.2013 and 03.07.2013 and due to inaction of the police, they filed Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.11050 to 11052 of 2013 to register a case.
9.According to the learned Senior counsel, when the complaints were given on 02.07.2013 and 03.07.2013, the petitioners were not aware of the collusion between the landlord and the officials, however, it revealed from their inaction. According to the learned Senior counsel, if the police had swung into action on receipt of the complaints, the tenants would not have been dispossessed by the landlord.
10.The main grievance of the petitioners is that the landlord had inducted new tenants, in violation of the order of status quo was passed by this court, on 16.07.2013.
11.According to the landlord, after the tenants surrendered vacant possession of the demised premises, he entered into an agreement with new tenants on 10.07.2013 even before the order of status quo passed by this court. Hence, there is no violation of the order of this court.
12.It is not in dispute that the 4th respondent is the owner of the premises. Whether the petitioners were inducted as tenants in the premises by the 4th respondent or not and whether the original tenant is T.G.Bhavanishankar Iyer or not, are the disputed question of facts, which cannot be determined in the writ petition filed invoking
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13.The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has produced photographs in support of his case that only after the order of this court, dated 16.07.2013, new tenants have been inducted. But, I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the reason that there is every possibility that the tenants could have brought their house- hold articles after occupying the premises.
14.For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have not violated the order passed by this court, dated 16.07.2013 made in MP(MD)Nos.2, 2 & 2 of 2013 in WP(MD)Nos.11294 to 11296of 2013.
15.In fine, these contempt petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Sub Applications are closed.
To,
1.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City.
2.The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Srirangam Range, Srirangam, Trichy.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order), Srirangam Range, Srirangam, Trichy.
.