By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the highhandedness of the police officers and also the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sibsagar in utter disregard to the provisions of law. 2. The petitioner had been occupying a left side room measuring 10 ft. x 45 ft. approximately in the ground floor of a RCC building situated at LKB Road. Amoiapatty, Sibsagar, covered by Dag No. 1893 of Periodic Patta No.1 189 of Nugarmahal Mouza, Sibsagar belonging to the 9th respondent on-an arrangement to pay rent at the rate of Rs.321/- per month. The 9th respondent wanted to evict the petitioner and, therefore, he filed a title suit (Title Suit No.68 of 1994) in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Sibsagar on the grounds mentioned therein. The petitioner occupied the said room on the basis of Annexure 1 Lease Deed. The suit was filed on the 7th of December, 1994. A few days thereafter i.e. on 13th December, 1994, the 9th respondent filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate - 8th respondent stating, inter alia, that the petitioner had been occupying the said premises under the 9th respondent as monthly tenant. However, he had not been paying rent though he stored materials in the said premises which emitted bad smell. It was also mentioned that the petitioner became insolvent and was unable to pay dues to the creditors. After enquiry the 9th respondent came to know that the petitioner had been living in Arunachal Pradesh. Finding no other alternative he approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate - 8th respondent and prayed for an order directing the Officer-in-charge, Sibsagar PS to open the lock, to take stock of the materials after making an inventory and to handover possession of the house to 9th respondent. The Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order directing the Officer-in-charge., Sibsagar Police Station to register a case, make investigation and to submit FT at an early date. Thereafter, on 14.12.94 SI NC Borah, OC Sibsagar Police Station submitted a report. In the report it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner had been occupying the premises in question as a tenant under the 9th respondent. About 3 years back he occupied the said premises on an arrangement to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Thereafter, on 14.12.94 SI NC Borah, OC Sibsagar Police Station submitted a report. In the report it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner had been occupying the premises in question as a tenant under the 9th respondent. About 3 years back he occupied the said premises on an arrangement to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Thereafter, he left for Arunachal Pradesh "for his own purpose". In the said report the OC further stated thus - "I have visited the PO and found that some unknown articles were kept inside the room which is suspected to be illegal article. The room is situated around some other businessman establishment. Some bad smell is coming out from the room which causes pollution and it may hamper the other public." The OC SI NC Borah by his aforesaid report further informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate that though he directed him to register a case it was difficult for him to put the proper section of law without verifying the articles kept inside the room. On the basis of the said report the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed 'the IO' to investigate the matter. The IO was authorised to break open the lock. It may be mentioned here that no case was till then registered. Therefore, there could be no Investigating Officer. On the basis of the said order the lock was broken open, articles were seized as per Annexure 5 seizure list and the seized articles were given in the zimma of the 9th respondent. Hence the present petition. 3. I have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 4. Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate allowing the Officer-in-charge to break open the lock of the house was illegal and without jurisdiction. It is violative of the Constitutional provisions under Article 21 of the Constitution. Without there being criminal case registered, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to pass such order. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits that on the basis of the petition filed, the CJM ought not to have called for any report because the petition did not disclose any offence whatsoever. Without there being criminal case registered, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to pass such order. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits that on the basis of the petition filed, the CJM ought not to have called for any report because the petition did not disclose any offence whatsoever. Annexure 3 petition clearly indicates that the petitioner was a tenant, may be, he was a defaulter in payment of rent, but that does not empower the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take up the matter. Mr. Bhattacharyya also draws my attention to Annexure 1 Lease Deed and Annexure 6 plaint. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that on the basis of Annexure 1 Lease Deed the petitioner had been occupying the premises as tenant. Knowing fully well that the matter was subjudice before a civil Court the 9th respondent filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate also passed order though the petition did not disclose any offence. The report of the Police Officer also did not disclose any offence. 5. Mr. SA Laskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chief Judicial Magistrate - 8th respondent, however, raises a preliminary objection against the maintainability of this application. According to Mr. Laskar the case being of criminal nature the petitioner ought not to have taken resort to the writ jurisdiction. 6. Mr. GN Sahewalla,,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 9th respondent supports the action of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. According to him as bad smell was coming from the room 9th respondent thought it necessary to bring it to the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for necessary action. 7. Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing oh behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 very candidly submits before this Court that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not in accordance with law and the door of the petitioner's premises was unreasonably opened. He further submits that the possession of the petitioner should be restored immediately. 8. On the rival contentions of the parties it is to be seen whether the action of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 can sustain in law. Admittedly the petitioner is a tenant under the 9th respondent and He can be evicted from the tenanted premises in accordance with law applicable in such cases. 8. On the rival contentions of the parties it is to be seen whether the action of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 can sustain in law. Admittedly the petitioner is a tenant under the 9th respondent and He can be evicted from the tenanted premises in accordance with law applicable in such cases. So long as the tenancy subsists a tenant cannot be removed from the tenanted premises. Relation of landlord and tenant can be determined in accordance with the provisions of law, definitely not in criminal Court. It is the basic and fundamental rule of law that a criminal Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to direct delivery of possession or for that matter direct breaking of lock on the grounds mentioned in Annexure 3. If a case is registered and it is a cognizable case, police in an appropriate ease may take steps for breaking open a lock in course of investigation. In the instant case no criminal case was registered. On the basis of Annexure 3 petition the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Officer-in-charge, Sibsagar Police Station to register a case who ultimately found it difficult to register a case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in a haste without proper application of mind passed this order which is contrary to the basic concept of criminal jurisprudence. It cannot be understood that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no knowledge of the law in this regard. At the instance of the 9th respondent he passed the order in an unholy haste completely ignoring the established principles of law. In spite of the matter being sub judice before a competent Court 9th respondent filed the Annexure 3 petition probably with a hope to secure eviction. This is definitely contrary to. law. Police Officer also in his report informed that he visited the place pursuant to the order passed by the CJM. He did not make any attempt to ascertain from outside without breaking the lock what were the materials lying inside the room. He was asked by the CJM to break open the lock during the course of investigation. In the instant case no case was registered and, therefore, question of investigation did not arise. He did not make any attempt to ascertain from outside without breaking the lock what were the materials lying inside the room. He was asked by the CJM to break open the lock during the course of investigation. In the instant case no case was registered and, therefore, question of investigation did not arise. Moreover, after seizure of the articles the police officer did not make any attempt to find out an independent person in the locality to give zimma of the seized articles and the seized articles were kept in the zimma of the 9th respondent. Alt these go to show how arbitrarily things were done ignoring the citizens' right. From the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the action of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 cannot be said to be bonafide. 9. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Laskar has no»4brce. The petitioner cannot take recourse to criminal proceeding as no criminal case was instituted. Besides, there being a patent illegality and lack of jurisdiction, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, in my opinion, is available. Therefore, I hold that this application is maintainable. 10. In view of the above, I am of opinion that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly, I set aside and qua the orders passed by tie Chief Judicial h Magistrate. I also hold that the action of the Polite- Officer was not befitting of his post. He did not discharge his duties as is expected. 9th respondent is also guilty of suppression of fact. He ought to have informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate about the pendency of the suit before filing the Annexure 3 petition, Accordingly, I direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner forthwith. 9th respondent shall return all the articles to the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 shal I pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- each to the petitioner. It will be open for the petitioner to claim damage in appropriate forum, if so advised. So far the 7th respondent SI NC Borah is concerned,, the Government may make enquiry and take appropriate action against him. 11. With the above observations the Civil Rule is disposed of.