(Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th Respondent to remove the illegal lock and seal placed on 11.12.2025 on the petitioner’s shop situated at Old No.38, New No.11/38, Kannadasan Street, Rengarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024 and permit the petitioner to peacefully run his scrap business and Directing Respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate Police Protection to the life, liberty and business/shop of the petitioner against illegal harassment by Respondents 3 and 4 and restraining Respondents 3 and 4 from repeatedly implicating the petitioner in false criminal cases at the behest of the landlady or third parties.)

1. Heard Mr.Sabarish .S for the petitioner, Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. N. Anangan for the fifth respondent. I have gone through the entire records.

2. The petitioner is a tenant under the fifth respondent. He is running a scrap material and waste paper recycling unit in the said premises. The fourth respondent police, alleging that the petitioner is a purchaser of goods stolen from railway, registered an FIR in Crime No.3 of 2025. An occurrence report has been filed in Crime Nos.3 & 5 on the file of the fourth respondent. It invoked the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. On account of this allegation, the premises of the petitioner was searched. After completing the search, the police locked and sealed the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner approached the Principal District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and obtained an anticipatory bail. He was called upon to comply with certain conditions, including appearing before the police everyday and mark his presence.

3. The petitioner states that on account of the locking and sealing of the premises, he is unable to carry on his business. He urges that he has been unlawfully dispossessed by the police. Consequently, he moved an application before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai. The said application was not taken on file stating that such an application is not maintainable before that Court. As his repeated attempts to take possession of the property from which he has been dispossessed failed on account of the objections that have been raised by the Registry of the Magistrate Court, (that they do not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order), he is before this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. On 01.10.2026, I noticed that the landlord, to whom the keys had been handed over, had not been arrayed as a party. Therefore, this Court suo motu impleaded the landlady as the fifth respondent and called upon the third respondent police to serve the papers on her. I posted the matter on 05.10.2026. When I took up the matter, Mr.N.Anangan, who appeared for the fifth respondent, sought time. Hence, I posted the matter today (07.10.2026).

5. On hearing the respective counsel, it is clear that earlier the landlady attempted to take possession in a manner known to law, by resorting to eviction proceedings. The petition came to be dismissed. Only on account of the fact that a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner by the fourth respondent, the premises have been locked and sealed. Furthermore, the keys to the building have been handed over to the landlady, effectively dispossessing the petitioner from his business premises.

6. Law always respects possession. Even if a person is a trespasser, and is in a settled possession of the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the executive arm of the State, which in this case, are the third and fourth respondents. The manner in which the petitioner can be dispossessed is only through the process of the Court. The landlady, having failed to take possession in the manner known to law, ought not to have received the keys from the police at all. If the police have seized the alleged stolen materials, it is up to them to prosecute the petitioner and get a conviction. It is not open to them, under the guise of a search to seal the premises, thereby indirectly dispossessing the petitioner. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

7. When the landlady is not in a position to take possession through the process of the Court, taking possession with the assistance of the police has to be deprecated. When all these aspects were pointed out, Mr.N.Anangan, appearing for the fifth respondent, states that the landlady will hand over the keys to the petitioner, enabling him to continue his business. He states that the keys will be handed over tomorrow (08.10.2026). I should add that, in case the petitioner is convicted of the crime, it is always open to the landlady to file a petition pointing out that very proceeding and obtain an order of eviction. (See, Section 21(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords & Tenants Act, 2017). Till such an order is obtained from the Court, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the property.

8. Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar submits that the fourth respondent police have sealed the premises on 11.12.2025. He states further that the seal has been removed on 01.10.2026. The fifth respondent shall produce the keys before this Court as stated by the counsel.

9. Needless to add, it is always open to the fifth respondent to initiate such proceedings, as she may be advised, to take possession of the property from the writ petitioner.

10. The writ petition is ordered with the aforesaid terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

11. Call this matter on 08.10.2026 ‘for reporting compliance’.