THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.12805 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent in calling the petitioners daily to Thukaramgate Police Station and issuing directions to them to restore the ground floor of premises bearing H.No.10-5-76/30/1 situated at Thukaramgate, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad to their ex-tenants or in lieu thereof to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to them. 2 It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the house bearing H.No.10-5-76/30/1 situated at Thukaramgate, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad. It is stated that they have given the rear side portion of the said house consisting three rooms to one Sri Hari, a private employee, on rental basis. It is stated that as the tenant has committed default in payment of rents, that they have filed R.C.No.126 of 1998 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad under the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for eviction of the said tenant and the same was ordered by judgment dated 17.01.2000. It is further stated that the tenant’s appeal in R.A.No.89 of 2000 was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. But, on revision, filed by the petitioners in CRP No.5450 of 2004, the same was allowed restoring the order of eviction. It is stated that in view of the order passed by this court in CRP No.5450 of 2004 they filed E.P.No.10 of 2007 in R.C.No.126 of 1998 and the petitioners were delivered possession of the premises, which was in occupation of the tenant, on 11.04.2007. 3 In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that after eviction, at the instance of the former tenants, who were evicted by due process of law, the third respondent – Station House Officer, Thukaramgate Police Station is interfering with the rights of the petitioners and calling them to the police station without registering any crime against them. It is stated that the third respondent has demanded either to restore possession of the three rooms to the former tenants or to pay Rs.50,000/- to them towards compensation. 4 This Court at the stage of admission of this Writ Petition, by order dated 10.12.2008 directed the third respondent not to summon the petitioners to the police station without following due process of law. 5 In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the allegations of the petitioners were denied. It is stated that the petitioners were never summoned nor they were directed to sit in the police station as alleged. It is also specifically denied that the petitioners were demanded to restore possession of the three rooms to the former tenants or to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to them. 6 Though there is a serious allegation of interference by the third respondent, but the same is denied in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent. In the absence of any further material except the plea of the petitioners regarding the alleged interference by the third respondent, and in view of the statement of the third respondent in the counter affidavit that they are not interfering with the rights and possession of the petitioners over the said premises, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition placing on record the statement of the third respondent that he is not interfering with the rights of the petitioners over the property and they have not issued any direction to the petitioners either to deliver possession of the three rooms to the former tenants or to pay compensation as alleged. 7 Subject to placing the said averments made by the third respondent on record, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ----------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 25.08.2011 Kvsn