ORDER:

I. FACTS IN BRIEF:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent No.3 and the police officials working under him not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of premises bearing Nos.8-1-3 and 8-1-4, situated behind Bodhan Bus Stand, Nizamabad, wherein the petitioner is running a restaurant under the name and style of “Hotel Qureshiya”, except by following due process of law.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is the owner of the aforesaid premises and that she leased out the same to the petitioner under a Rental Agreement dated 11.01.2025 for a period of eleven months on a monthly rent of Rs.55,000/-. According to the petitioner, he had deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as an interest-free security deposit and commenced running a restaurant in the said premises. It is further pleaded that upon expiry of the original lease period, the arrangement was extended for a further period of six months under a Memorandum of Understanding allegedly executed by the 5th respondent, who is stated to be the husband of the 4th respondent, on a revised monthly rent of Rs.60,000/-.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he continues to remain in possession and enjoyment of the subject premises and is carrying on business therein. According to him, respondents 4 and 5 are attempting to evict him without resorting to due process of law and, for the said purpose, are allegedly utilizing the services of respondent No.3-police.

4. The petitioner alleges that police personnel have been repeatedly visiting the premises and are exerting pressure upon him to vacate the premises. Apprehending forcible dispossession with the aid of police machinery, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking protection against such interference.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 arises out of a tenancy arrangement and is purely civil in nature. It is contended that the petitioner is in settled possession of the premises and that any dispute concerning continuation of tenancy or recovery of possession can be adjudicated only before a competent civil forum.

6. Learned counsel would further submit that the police authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere in disputes relating to landlord-tenant relationships or to assist either party in securing possession of the property. It is argued that the repeated visits of the police to the premises and the alleged pressure exerted upon the petitioner to vacate the premises amount to an abuse of authority and are wholly without jurisdiction.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the police authorities have received a complaint from respondent No.5 against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the police authorities have no intention of adjudicating any civil dispute between the parties and that they would act strictly in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the police authorities shall not interfere in disputes of a purely civil nature except to the extent required in discharge of their statutory duties.

IV. CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT:

8. Since the grievance of the petitioner is confined to the alleged interference of the police authorities in what is asserted to be a civil dispute concerning possession of immovable property, and having regard to the limited nature of the relief sought in the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can be suitably disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling upon the unofficial respondents to enter appearance, particularly as no adverse adjudication on the inter se civil rights of the parties is proposed to be made in these proceedings.

9. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the