Title: R. Geethalakshmi Vs. The Tamil Nadu State.
Decided On: September 13, 2023.
W.P.(MD)No.18184 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.15013 of 2021.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar.
Facts:
The petitioner states that U. Senthilvel the fifth respondent is the tenant under the petitioner from the year 2016 and there was some dispute between them. On 22.08.2020, the fifth respondent along with his friends entered into the house of the petitioner, assaulted her husband and threatened him if he further demands any money, he would be done away. During the last week of October, 2020, the fifth respondent vacated the house, but locked the house and not handed over the key to the petitioner. Further, he failed to pay Rs.40,000/-, being the rental dues. Again, on 06.10.2020 the fifth respondent threatened and abused the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the fourth respondent against the fifth respondent and his mother. The fifth respondent is related to some Police Personnels, who are supporting him and therefore, the fourth respondent has not taken any action against him. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 27.11.2020 to the second respondent. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
The petitioner and 5th respondent on an oral agreement of rent and the 5th respondent gave Rs.2,00,000 in advance. The fifth respondent and his mother were residing in the first floor of the petitioner’s house. The fifth respondent’s sister’s daughter used to bring food to his mother. On one such occasion, the petitioner’s husband made sexual torture to his sister’s daughter and also made improper touch, for which, a complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.8 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9(m), 9(u) and 10 of the POCSO Act has been registered by the All Women Police Station, Manamadurai. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner’s husband in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2020. The petitioner has been adopting all tactics, forcing the fifth respondent to ensure the withdrawal of the POCSO Act case registered against the petitioner’s husband and further informed that unless the POCSO Act case is withdrawn, the lease amount will not be repaid. He further submitted that on the complaint of the fifth respondent, the petitioner and her husband were called for enquiry. Initially, the petitioner herein appeared for enquiry before the third respondent and sought further time and thereafter, they did not appear for enquiry. It is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and hence, the Police getaway further action in this regard. The petitioner neither participated in the enquiry nor preferred any proceedings before the Rent Control Court or any other civil forum, seeking appropriate remedy. On the other hand, she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is not permissible in law and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Conclusion:
The petitioner and the fifth respondent had some dispute with regard to tenancy over the property, which can be sorted out between them or through the Civil Court. The respondent Police have rightly kept away from the civil dispute. It is also to be seen that the petitioner’s husband involved in a case relating to POCSO Act and the victim girl is related to the fifth respondent. The Court held Since there are no merits to entertain the present Writ Petition the same is liable to be dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
