In a tenancy dispute, the court can appoint a court receiver to take possession of the premises until the dispute is resolved.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/12/1993 of the High court of Judicature at Madras passed in Criminal O. P. No. 8926 of 1997. From the lengthy-judgment written by the High court it appears that Respondent no. 1 has taken undue advantage of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code however, for the dismissal of this appeal various proceedings, orders and arguments referred to by the High Court are not required to be dealt with now as the matter has reached only at an early interim stage of the litigation.

( 3 ) IT is the say of the appellants that on 28/6/1978, appellant No. 1 entered into an agreement with one Smt. Sakunthala in respect of a portion of the space at Door No. 7, Hanumantha Rayan Koli Street, Chennai for tenancy for residential purpose. In October 1987, the tenancy was converted for both residential and non-residential purpose. On 17/10/1996, the appellants received a letter from the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claiming that they had purchased the premises in question by a registered sale deed dated 16/10/1996 and informing that the monthly rent be remitted to them. Admittedly, the appellants confirmed the same with the land lady. It is the case of the appellants that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not accept the rent from them; with the result the appellant sent the rent by way of demand draft on 30/12/1996 for the months of October and november, 1996 and again by way of pay order on 17/3/1997 for the months of december 1996, January and February 1997 with advocates notice. It is the further case of the appellants that on 5/7/1997, they left the premises locked for going out from chennai and next day when they returned, they found that the premises were opened and stock worth Rs 1,73,823. 00 was missing. On 9/7/1997, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,400. 00 being rent for March to June 1997 was sent along with Advocates notice and a complaint was lodged with the police, but the police refused to accept the same on the premise that it was a civil dispute. On 10/7/1997, the appellants filed a suit for injunction bearing o. S. No. 4705 of 1997 before the City Civil court, Madras against respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The appellants further came to know that the landlord has set up one Santosh Agarwal, respondent no. 1 to take possession of the premises in question. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 filed Crl. O. P. 8926/97 in the High court seeking directions to respondent no. 2 for investigation of the said case by Crime branch, CID, Chennai. Respondent no. 2 appeared before the High court on 11/7/1997 and the High court directed respondent no. 2 to break open and handover the premises to respondent no. 1 Accordingly, the police handed over the premises in question to respondent no. 1. On 22/10/1997, the appellants came to know about the proceedings of Crl. O. P. No. 8926/97 and filed an application for impleadment as party respondents and also to vacate the interim order. On this application, the High court directed the police to take possession of the premises in question from respondent no. 1 and seal the same.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the High court heard both the parties and vide its impugned order observed (in para no. 118 that:- ". . this court (the High court) is not able to accept the contention of either side. It may be that Dalichand would have vacated the premises and put sub-tenant santhosh Agarwal in the said premises without the consent of the landlords and that subsequently, after some period santhosh Agarwal would have shifted his loyalty to the landlords and entered into rental agreement with them or it may be that the landlords would have set up santhosh Agarwal as a tenant in the premises, in order to show that heobtained possession from him without going to the court to evict the original tenant by following due process of law. However, on the materials available on record, this court is not able to decide as to whose content