1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.10898 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 T.S.G.Manickam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District, District Police Office, Thanjavur. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam Town, Kumbakonam. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, Kumbakonam. 4.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam West Police Station, Kumbakonam. 5.R.Ramakrishnan ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to forbear the respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 from harassing the petitioner in any manner under the guise of inquiry at the instance of the 5th respondent with regard to a civil dispute between them by considering his representation dated 17.09.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.Rajasekar for Mr.M.E.Ilango For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandaraj, G.A. O R D E R Mr.R.Anandaraj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the Writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2.The petitioner is stated to be a tenant under the 6th respondent. His grievance is that the 5th respondent landlord through the Police officials namely, respondents 1 to 4 is always harassing the petitioner. Therefore, the present Writ petition is filed for a direction against the 1st respondent Superintendent of Police to forbear respondents 2 to 4 from harassing the petitioner in the guise of enquiry at the instance of the 5th respondent. It is seen that the petitioner has in fact made a representation to the 1st respondent on 17.09.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Law is well settled that if the relationship between the petitioner and the 5th respondent is that of the tenant and the landlord and if there is any dispute of tenancy between them, it is for them to work out their remedy either in the Rent Control Code or before the Civil Court or in the manner known to law. If really the contention of the petitioner that respondents 1 to 4 are harassing the petitioner for the purpose of getting possession of the property from the petitioner to the 5th respondent, then such thing cannot be entertained. 4.Therefore, the Writ petition stands disposed of with a direction against respondents 1 to 4 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner only in respect of his lease hold right and drive the parties to the appropriate forum for remedy. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District, District Police Office, Thanjavur. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam Town, Kumbakonam. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, Kumbakonam. 4.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam West Police Station, Kumbakonam. +1CC TO MR.M.E.ELANGO, ADVOCATE SR.33049 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.33108 Nbj SR : 29.09.2011 : 2p/7c W.P.(MD)No.10898 fo 2011 23.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/