N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 1375 of 2001 Between: 1 B.Kamalabai W/o. late Ramanchander R/o. Khammam, Khammam District. 2 B.Suresh S/o. late Ramachander R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 B.Kishore S/o. late Ramachander R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Khammam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Superintendent of Police, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Station House Officer, III-Town Police Station, Khammam. 3 Shri Karnati Vijaya Bhaskar Rao S/o. Sreeramulu R/o. 2-2-105, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from the premises bearing No. 2-2-104, situate at Gandhi Chowk, Khammam, as arbitrary, illegal, capricious, violative of all cannons of law and justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the premises bearing Door No. 2-2-104, situate at Gandhi Chowk, Khammam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.S.ANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R The case of the petitioners is that they are the tenants in the house belonging to the 3rd respondent and when the 3rd respondent tried to evict them by force, they filed a suit seeking an injunction against the 3rd respondent restraining him from evicting them forcibly, and obtained an interim injunction, and subsequently, 3rd respondent filed a petition seeking their eviction from the tenanted premises, and when both the above suits were pending, 3rd respondent made a complaint to the 1st respondent (Superintendent of Police, Khammam), who is holding Praja Darbars on every Friday, against them, who in turn referred the matter to the 2nd respondent (Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Khammam) for necessary action, and so, the 2nd respondent had on 22.01.2001 called the 2nd petitioner to the Police Station and directed him and the other petitioners to vacate the premises in their possession within two days from that date, at the pain of forcible eviction or settlement with the 3rd respondent and as respondents 1 and 2 have no right to ask them to vacate the tenanted premises on the petitions said to have been made by the 3rd respondent before them, they i.e. respondents 1 and 2 may be directed not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the tenanted premises or harass them. Along with the writ petition the petitioners filed WPMP No.1713 of 2001 seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to harass them in any manner, including calling them to the Police Station concerned in connection with the dispute raised by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. A learned Judge while admitting the writ petition, through his order dated 30.01.2001 granted the interim orders sought and that interim order is still in force. Though the case is from 2001, none of the respondents filed their counter-affidavits till now. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing strong reliance on T.ANJANEYULU V/s. D.T.NAIK [1] contended that inasmuch as the 1st respondent has no authority to interfere with the possession of the tenanted premises of the petitioners, merely because he is a Police Officer, petitioners are entitled to the relief sought. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Respondents 1 and 2 who are expected to safeguard the law and order situation, cannot take law into their own hands by usurping the powers of Courts, merely on the basis of a representation given to the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent seeking eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted premises, 1st respondent who has no right to direct eviction of the petitioners by force, that too when it is the specific case of the petitioners is that 3rd respondent already filed a suit seeking their eviction from the tenanted premises, cannot direct the 2nd respondent to give any ultimatum or direct the petitioners to enter into a settlement with the 3rd respondent. So, the petitioners are entitled to seek the relief sought. Hence, writ petition is allowed with costs. Respondents 1 and 2 are restrained from harassing the petitioners in connection with the tenanted premises taken on lease from the 3rd respondent on a representation/complaint said to have been given by the 3rd respondent. It is needless to say that the 3rd respondent by taking recourse to due process of law, can evict the petitioners from the tenanted premises. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU 20TH FEBRUARY, 2008 PGS To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU W.P.NO.1375 OF 2001 20th FEBRUARY, 2008 [1] 1997 A.P. 237