Judgment The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the respondents 3 to 6 on the basis of the complaint/representation submitted by the petitioner dated 2. 2010. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Company doing retail trading services in respect of FMCGS and has a large number of outlets all over India and it is providing goods at discounted price by the process of direct marketing by obviating the role of middlemen. After September, 2008, the Company expanded rapidly with 1600 outlets and ran into deep financial crunch and for restructuring the Company by closing certain branches, necessary schemes have been placed under the provisions of Section 391 Companies Act, 1956, before this Court and the said company petition is pending. 3. The 6th respondent filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 seeking eviction in respect of a non-residential premises at Door No.155 Medavakkam Main Road, Keelkattalai, Chennai-117. The 6th respondent and two others (namely the wife and mother of the 6th respondent) received a refundable security deposit of Rs.1.50 lakhs from the petitioner and agreed to receive rent at Rs.9,500/-per month. According to the petitioner, in the rent control proceedings, the petitioner has not received any notice till date. During routine verification of the said premises on 2. 2010, it was found that the locks at the property were replaced by the 6th respondent by breaking the lock open and forcibly entering into the premises by approaching the third respondent Police. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the breaking was made under the supervision of the Police and Tahsildar. The Police refused to give any further details and thereafter the petitioner applied for the copies of the documents under the RTI Act. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the 6th respondent filed a complaint before the third respondent Police Station stating that the petitioner had not paid the rents and therefore the lock had to be opened and move the materials available in the premises. The third respondent instead of directing the 6th respondent to move the competent Civil Court, registered CSR No.566 of 2009 on 212. 2009 and sought for support from the 5th respondent Tahsildar for supervising the breaking. The third respondent instead of directing the 6th respondent to move the competent Civil Court, registered CSR No.566 of 2009 on 212. 2009 and sought for support from the 5th respondent Tahsildar for supervising the breaking. The 5th respondent by order dated 1. 2010 provided staff for breaking. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that when the competent Court seized of the matter in an eviction proceeding, the 6th respondent with the connivance of the respondents 3 to 5 usurped possession of the premises and stolen the assets worth Rs.15 lakhs for which the petitioner is independently taking action. It is also stated in the affidavit that in RCOP No.4 of 2009 an exparte order of eviction was obtained by the 6th respondent on 212. 2009, based on the exparte order, the 6th respondent had approached the third respondent and broke open the premises. On 2. 2010, the petitioner submitted representation before the first and second respondents and requested to take action against the respondents 3 to 5. Petitioner also requested to register FIR against the said persons and prayed for restoration of the possession. Because of the said action of the respondents 3 to 5 who acted in collusion with the 6th respondent in over reaching the Court proceedings, petitioner has filed the writ petition with the above prayer. 5. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit by contending that the writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner Company took the premises measuring an extent of 950 sq.ft. in the ground floor in Door No.155 Medavakkam Main Road, Keelkattalai, Chennai-117 on monthly rent from the month of June, 2002 for running supermarket by agreeing to pay a rent of Rs.9,000/- per month and also agreed to pay increased rent at 15% over three years. Petitioner was to pay the increased rent of Rs.10,350/- per month from 6. 2005 and Rs.11,902.50 per month from 6. 2008. Petitioner was not regular in payment of rent and therefore there was arrears of rent of Rs.50,051.44 and the 6th respondent issued a notice in November, 2008 and called upon the petitioner to quit and surrender the premises, but even thereafter the petitioner has not paid the arrears. 2005 and Rs.11,902.50 per month from 6. 2008. Petitioner was not regular in payment of rent and therefore there was arrears of rent of Rs.50,051.44 and the 6th respondent issued a notice in November, 2008 and called upon the petitioner to quit and surrender the premises, but even thereafter the petitioner has not paid the arrears. The premises was under closure for several months and the petitioner having defaulted payment of rent for more than 16 months, the petitioner filed eviction petition on the ground of willful default in paying rents in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur. After several notices and publication in the newspaper, the petitioner did not chose to appear and eviction was ordered on 212. 2009 and thereafter petitioner approached the police and took possession without filing execution petition as the premises was under lock for several months. At the request of the petitioner, the Inspector of Police, Law and Order requested the Tahsildar, Tambaram, to issue necessary orders. The Tahsildar Sholinganallur, who was in charge of Tahsildar, Tambaram, directed the Village Administrative Officer, Madipakkam, to be present at the time of taking possession and on 1. 2010, the 6th respondent took possession in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and Police Officials by taking inventories. The articles of the petitioner were kept in a separate room, which is in the 6th respondents custody. Payment of Rs.1.50 lakhs towards advance is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that due to non-payment of electricity charges, the electricity supply to the premises was disconnected. 6. When the writ petition was posted for admission, the learned Government Advocate has taken notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. 7. Thethird respondent filed counter affidavit on 3. 2010 and stated that the 6th respondent presented a petition on 212. 2009 stating that he had leased out his premises to the petitioner and the petitioner defaulted in paying rents for 16 months and kept the premises under lock. The said complaint was taken as C.S.R.No.566/2009 as per the instructions of the Inspector of Police, Crime, and the matter being civil nature, the 4th respondent directed the same to be forwarded to the Revenue Authorities by a covering letter dated 212. 2009. Thereafter on 1. The said complaint was taken as C.S.R.No.566/2009 as per the instructions of the Inspector of Police, Crime, and the matter being civil nature, the 4th respondent directed the same to be forwarded to the Revenue Authorities by a covering letter dated 212. 2009. Thereafter on 1. 2010 in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, list of articles were taken and on 1. 2010, Police bandobust was given and eviction was carried out and the petition given by the 6th respondent dated 212. 2009 was closed. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not approached the third respondent by giving any complaint and based on the petition given by the 6th respondent Community Service Register was opened giving C.S.R.No.566/2009 and therefore there is no illegality in ordering eviction. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, 6th respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5. 9. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent filed an additional typed set of papers containing the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur dated 212. 2009. From the perusal of the order passed in the rent control proceedings, it is evident that the petitioner was set exparte in the eviction petition filed under section 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The said order is an exparte order. However, two months time for eviction from 212. 2009 was granted. The order passed in RCOP is extracted hereunder: "O R D E R This petition is filed u/s.10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to pass an order of eviction against the respondents on the ground of willful default/owners occupation/for costs of the petition. Orders pronounced. Records perused. Petition claim proved. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. Eviction ordered. Time of eviction 2 months from today." The 6th respondent has applied for copy of the order on 1. 2010 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, bearing Copy Application No.17/2010. Stamp papers were called for on 21. 2010 and remarks were furnished on 21. 2010. Copy of the order was made ready on 12. 2010 and copy was delivered to the 6th respondent on 22. 2010. 10. 2010 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, bearing Copy Application No.17/2010. Stamp papers were called for on 21. 2010 and remarks were furnished on 21. 2010. Copy of the order was made ready on 12. 2010 and copy was delivered to the 6th respondent on 22. 2010. 10. From the above narrated facts it is evident that the petitioner was set exparte in the rent control proceedings and an exparte order of eviction was passed on 212. 2009 in RCOP No.4 of 2009 and the learned Rent Controller granted two months time for vacating the premises and the two months period expired only on 22. 2010. The 6th respondent being a party to the proceedings, particularly when he has participated in the proceedings by giving exparte evidence as PW-1, is very much aware of the time granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. 11. Admittedly the petitioner was forcibly evicted at the instance of the 6th respondent with the help of respondents 3 to 5 on 1. 2010. The forcible eviction of the petitioner from the premises by breaking open the lock with police protection and in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer was made on the basis of the complaint given by the 6th respondent dated 212. 2009, which was registered as C.S.R.No.566/2009 by the third respondent stating it as a Community Service Register. It is also beyond doubt from the said register that the 6th respondent has not produced the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. Even according to the 6th respondent, the order passed in the eviction petition was furnished to him only on 22. 2010. However, the third respondent registered the complaint given by the 6th respondent as CSR 566/2009 on 212. 2009 itself and initiated action without knowing the actual order passed in the eviction proceeding. The 5th respondent also gave direction to the Village Administrative Officer to make inventories by passing an order on 1. 2010. The said order was also passed without knowing the actual order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner. Thus it is beyond doubt that not only the 6th respondent but also the respondents 3 to 5 acted without any material viz., the order of eviction passed against the petitioner. 12. As stated supra, the time granted by the Rent Controller to vacate the premises expired only on 22. 2010. Thus it is beyond doubt that not only the 6th respondent but also the respondents 3 to 5 acted without any material viz., the order of eviction passed against the petitioner. 12. As stated supra, the time granted by the Rent Controller to vacate the premises expired only on 22. 2010. Therefore the cause of action for initiating eviction proceedings arises either by filing execution petition or to get police aid will arise only after 22. 2010, if the eviction order dated 212. 2009 was not set aside or stayed by any appellate forum. Admittedly the petitioner was thrown out from the premises on 1. 2010 and the premises was locked by the 6th respondent. The said action of the 6th respondent which was carried out by the aid of the respondents 3 to 5 is clearly unauthorised and interfering with the administration of justice. The respondents 3 to 6 have not only violated the eviction order passed on 212. 2009, but also at the instance of the 6th respondent, respondents 3 to 5 have interfered with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent, which is totally prohibited as the civil dispute between the parties can be resolved only through the forum created for the civil dispute, here in this case the Rent Control Court. Hence the action of the 6th respondent in approaching the third respondent and the consequential registration of the complaint given by the 6th respondent on 212. 2009 by registering it as CSR No.566/2009 by the third respondent and the consequential direction issued to the Tahsildar and as well as the direction issued by the Tahsildar to the Village Administrative Officer on 1. 2010 and the eviction carried out with police bandobust on 1. 2010 cannot be treated as valid as the same are contrary to the order passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 dated 212. 2009. For execution of the order passed in rent control proceedings, execution petition can be filed under section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed appropriate application to set aside the exparte order before the Rent Controller and the same is pending. For execution of the order passed in rent control proceedings, execution petition can be filed under section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed appropriate application to set aside the exparte order before the Rent Controller and the same is pending. It is up to the petitioner to approach the Rent Controller to seek appropriate orders as the petitioner requires and the 6th respondent to contest the same in a manner known to law. 14. This case is a classic example of Police and Revenue officials interfering in civil matters. The Supreme Court and this Court are repeatedly giving directions not to interfere in civil disputes between private individuals as adjudication of civil disputes can be made only through courts created for the said purpose and the Court orders are to be obeyed by all concerned, whether it is Revenue Authorities, Police or private litigants. 15. In the decision reported in 2007 (6) Supreme 97 (The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah) the Honourable Supreme Court held that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. In paragraph 31, it is held thus, "31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected." The tendency to convert the civil disputes into criminal prosecution is also condemned by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 : (2006) 6 SCC 736 (M/s.Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s.NEPC India Ltd). The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected." The tendency to convert the civil disputes into criminal prosecution is also condemned by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 : (2006) 6 SCC 736 (M/s.Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s.NEPC India Ltd). In paragraph 10 (in AIR) of the Judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows: "10. ...... it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. ( (2000) 2 SCC 636 ). this Court observed: (SCC p.643, para 8) “It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. .........." 16. In this case the remedy open to the 6th respondent was to file execution petition under section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, after the expiry of time granted to vacate and the Rent Controller, if necessary, could have issued appropriate directions to the Police to give protection to execute the order passed in RCOP. Thus, from any angle the action of the 6th respondent as well as the conduct of the respondents 2 to 5 cannot be justified. 17. Since the action initiated by the 6th respondent, which was completed on 1. 2010 is found as improper, the petitioner has made out a case for issuing a writ. Consequently, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2. 2010 seeking appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs.