Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for an issuance of writ petition in the nature of certiorari with consequential relief of issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.23234/2011/PNal dated 22.7.2011 and quash the same, and further directing the second respondent to hand over the key of he premises bearing Door No.77, Gandhi Road, Thiruvallur Town, Thiruvallur District. 2. In support of the petition, the affidavit filed reads as under: 2.) I most respectfully submit that the property bearing Door No.77, Gandhi Road, Thiruvallur originally belonged to my grandmother Alamelu Ammal wife of R.R.S.Ekambara Chettiar. During the life time of the above said Alamelu Ammal had executed a deed of settlement dated 10.12.1997 registered as Document No.5277 of 1997 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Redhills in my favour. In the meanwhile my brother R.Soundarajan the third respondent herein claiming right over the above said property that the above said Alamelu Ammal had executed a Power of Attorney in his favour and by virtue of the same, he had executed an agreement of sale in favour of his wife Seethalakshmi and got the assessment of the above said property in his name by making misrepresentation. Thereafter, the above said Alamelu Ammal had cancelled the above said power of attorney executed in favour of my brother the third respondent herein by a registered deed of Cancellation dated 19.12.1997 registered as Document No.818 of 1997 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Redhills, Chnenai. Further the above said Alameluammal had expired on 13.6.1998. I am advised to submit that the said lakshmi Ammal, wife of R.Soundarajan had not taken any steps on the alleged sale agreement of sale had become not acted upon and also barred limitation. Further it is well settled that the agreement of sale will not create any title over the property in question. Thereafter in pursuance of my representation along with the copies of registered deed of settlement dated 10.12.1997 by the original owner my grandmother Alamelammal the name of assessment in respect of the above said property had been changed in my favour by the Municipal authorities. Thereafter in pursuance of my representation along with the copies of registered deed of settlement dated 10.12.1997 by the original owner my grandmother Alamelammal the name of assessment in respect of the above said property had been changed in my favour by the Municipal authorities. Thereafter I came to know that my brother the 3rd respondent herein claimed the right over the above said property through the said alleged power of attorney in favour of his wife Seethalakshmi Ammal claiming rents from the 2nd respondent herein. As stated above the said alleged power of attorney executed by the above said Alameluammal had already been cancelled by her through a registered deed of Cancellation under Document No.818 of 1997 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Redhills, Chennai and the said Alameluammal also had already been died as early as on 13.6.1998 and admittedly no power of attorney exits in favour my brother the third respondent herein or his wife the said Seethalakshmi has no right over the said property. I respectfully submit that the third respondent herein or his wife Seethalakshmi had not taken any steps to have the sale registered in their favour on the strength of the alleged sale agreement during the life time of the abovesaid Alameluammal within the stipulated time. Hence the above said alleged sale agreement had already been become lapsed as not acted upon and also time barred. 3.) I most respectfully submit that in pursuance of the above said registered deed of settlement dated 10.12.1997 by my grandmother the above said Alameluammal, the Tahsildar, Tiruvallur had issued patta in respect of the property in question under RPT 454/04-05 dated 22.7.2004. Further the property assessment by the Tiruvallur Municipality had also been transferred in my name under proceedings No.3761/2004/A1 date 22.7.2004. I further submit that I had already brought the same to the knowledge of the second respondent herein by letter dated 27.11.2003 and sought for the payment of rent to me. Further the property assessment by the Tiruvallur Municipality had also been transferred in my name under proceedings No.3761/2004/A1 date 22.7.2004. I further submit that I had already brought the same to the knowledge of the second respondent herein by letter dated 27.11.2003 and sought for the payment of rent to me. Thereafter I shocked to note from the letter dated 22.7.2004 by the second respondent herein had I came to know that my brother 3rd respondent had deliberately suppressed all the facts and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24514 of 2004 before the Hon`ble Court and obtained an order dated 05.10.2004 directing the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of his alleged representation dated 08.7.2004 to be disposed of within the period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the above order of this Hon`ble Court. 4.) I most respectfully submit that though I had already placed the above true facts in my earlier representation dated 27.11.2003 along with a copy of settlement deed executed by my grandmother Alameluammal and also the death certificate dated 13.6.1998 of the above said Alameluammal to the respondents 1 and 2 herein I submit that since there was no response in this regard. Hence I had once again submitted the relevant documents such as (1) Registered settlement deed dated 10.12.1997 and (2) copy of patta dated 22.7.2004 issued in my name (3) The communication sent by the Commissioner, Tiruvallur Municipality regarding transfer of assessment in my name in respect of the above said property bearing Door No.77, Gandhi Road, Tiruvallur and receipt of the payment of property tax paid upto March 2005 and other relevant documents by a representation dated 24.11.2004. Further I requested the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider therewith for the payment of rents including arrears to me in respect of the above said property. 5.) I respectfully submit that thereafter I filed a writ petition in W.P.No.35293 of 2004 in this regard and this Hon`ble Court by order dated 2.12.2004 was pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the above my representation 1 and 2 herein to consider the above my representation by eight weeks. 5.) I respectfully submit that thereafter I filed a writ petition in W.P.No.35293 of 2004 in this regard and this Hon`ble Court by order dated 2.12.2004 was pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the above my representation 1 and 2 herein to consider the above my representation by eight weeks. Thereafter I was asked to execute a deed of agreement by the 2nd respondent herein and I entered into an agreement dated 3.1.2005 with the 2nd respondent herein by agreeing to pay enhanced rent @ 9,500/- per month from 03.1.2005 to 30.11.2005. Further it was also agreed by me to receive the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.3000 per month from June 2001 to September 2003 and the said arrears had already been paid to me. I respectfully submit that though the 2nd respondent herein had agreed to pay the above enhanced payment of monthly rent to me at Rs.9,500/-per month from 03.1.2005 to 03.11.2005 as agreed by them and it was not paid by the second respondent herein till dated and also the respondent herein so far had not come forward to renew the above Lease Agreement. 6.) I most respectfully submit that thereafter my brother the third respondent herein has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7539 of 2005 before this Hon’ble Court in which myself and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the parties to the above said Writ Petition and it is still pending. Further a suit in O.S.No.102 of 1992 on the file of the III Fast Track Court at Thiruvallur originally filed by me for relief of declaration and subsequently amended for bare injunction as against the third respondent herein as directed by this Hon`ble Court in C.R.P.No.1721 of 2010 and thereafter since the 2nd respondent herein claimed that he had vacated the said premises, I was advised to withdraw the above suit on 17.7.2011. 7.) I most respectfully submit that in the meanwhile on 18.10.2010, I was shocked to note that the above premises was opened and some unknown persons were inside the same and when I enquired them as they whether belonged to the respondent's 1 and 2 office, but there was no proper response and they gave evasive reply as they were not aware anything about the ownership of the premises in question. However I realised that they are only a trespassers and they were no way connected with the respondent's 1 and 2 office. Thereafter I immediately contacted the 2nd respondent's office and the staffs also were unable to give any explanation. However they asked me to give a representation to Higher Officials in this regard and hence I was asked to sent a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 herein on 21.10.2010 by the registered post with acknowledged due. I submit that since there was no response and I was constrained to file a writ petition before this Hon`ble Court in W.P.No.25121 of 2010 and this Hon`ble Court by order dated 08.11.2010 was pleased to pass direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider and pass orders on above my representation within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of above order. 8.) I most respectfully submit that thereafter I sent a representation along with the copy of the above order of this Hon`ble Court made in the above W.P.No.25121 of 2010 and requested them to comply with the above orders of this Hon`ble Court within the stipulated time by registered post to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Further I also personally served a representation to the 2nd respondent. I respectfully submit that though the respondents 1 and 2 herein had acknowledged the receipt of the order of this Hon`ble Court on 22.12.2010 they had not complied with the orders of this Hon`ble Court. Hence I was constrained to file a contempt petition No.698 of 2011 and the learned Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 herein on 13.7.2011. 9.) I most respectfully submit that after filing of the above contempt petition, I received a communication dated 22.7.2011 from the second respondent herein by stating that myself and my brother the third respondent herein were directed to appear on 22.2.2011 and my brother the 3rd respondent herein alone appeared and told that the above property bearing Door No.77, Gandhi Road, Tiruvallur was in his custody and further myself had not deposited the amount of Rs.2,66,000/- till date as per the orders dated 7.3.2005 in W.P.No.7539 of 2005 and he asked the 2nd respondent herein to take necessary steps to deposit the said amount by me. The 2nd respondent herein has further stated in his communication dated 22.7.2011 that myself had not given any statement though I had represented in person to give statement after consulting my advocate. The 2nd respondent herein had further stated in his communication that a case in O.S.No.102 of 1999 to decide the ownership of the building and proceedings at the cross-examination stage. I further submit that the 2nd respondent herein has further stated that when he inspected the said property as there was nobody in the premises as claimed in my representation dated 21.10.2010 but it was locked. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent herein that the arrears of rent for the period of 01.2.2005 to 27.6.2006 a sum of Rs.1,72,274/- has been deposited in the Sub Court, Tiruvallur under D.D.No.476393 dated 14.6.2010 and further stated that unless and until ownership of the building is decided in the suit initiated by me, any further action would be taken in this regard. Further the second respondent herein has stated in his impugned proceedings dated 22.7.2011 that I have been directed to deposit the amount of Rs.2,66,000/- as per orders dated 7.3.2005 no decision would be taken on my presentation dated 21.10.2010 till the disposal of O.S.No.102 of 1999. 10.) I most respectfully submit that the 2nd respondent herein without properly perusing my representation dated 21.10.2010 and the records sent along with the same, erroneously and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 08.11.2010 in W.P.No.25121 of 2010 has passed the above impugned communication dated 22.7.2010 and that too after filing of the Contempt Petition No.698 of 2011 before this Hon’ble Court. I submit that admittedly there was no order dated 07.3.2005 directing me to deposit any amount as claimed by the 2nd respondent herein in W.P.No.7539 of 2005. I further submit that a perusal of the order in W.P.M.P.No.8235 of 2005 in WP.No.7539 of 2005 dated 07.3.2005 this Hon’ble Court was only pleased to stay the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated Nil... 2.2005 in Na.Ka.No.W1/23234/01 pending disposal of the above writ petition. I submit that the suit filed be me in O.S.No.102 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court at Tiruvallur is only a suit for bare injunction and that too filed as against the 3rd respondent herein and it was not a suit for any declaration of title of the property in question. I submit that the suit filed be me in O.S.No.102 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court at Tiruvallur is only a suit for bare injunction and that too filed as against the 3rd respondent herein and it was not a suit for any declaration of title of the property in question. I further submit that since the 2nd respondent herein without property perusing my representation dated 21.10.20010 and the records furnished by me and without complying with the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 08. 11.2010 in W.P.No.25121 of 2010 has passed the impugned communication dated 22.7.2011 and hence the same is liable to be quashed by the issue of a writ of certcaiorari mandamus by calling for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 22.7.2011 in Na.Ka.No.23234 /2011. 3. A reading of the affidavit shows that the grievance of the petitioner is that on 18.10.2010, some unknown persons had entered the premises without any authority of law. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the unknown persons trespassed the property but none of the person is party to this writ petition. 5. The submission of the petitioner is that, as the second respondent was unable to give any explanation as to how these persons have occupied the premises, he sent a representation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but the said representation was not decided. 6. The petitioner filed WP.No.25121 of 2010 wherein the direction was issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. 7. The representation filed by the petitioner stands rejected by the respondent. In the order, it has been stated that the petitioner failed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,66,000 (Rupees two lakhs sixty six thousand only), as directed vide order dated 07.3.2005 in WP.No.7539 of 2005. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that this order is erroneous, as there was no such direction in the writ petition for depositing any amount. The respondents therefore are bound to consider the representation filed by the petitioner 9. On consideration I find that the writ petition is totally misconceived. 10. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had rented out the property to tenant but the tenant instead of paying the rent, vacated the premises and handed over the vacant possession to some unauthorised person who have trespassed into his property. 11. On consideration I find that the writ petition is totally misconceived. 10. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had rented out the property to tenant but the tenant instead of paying the rent, vacated the premises and handed over the vacant possession to some unauthorised person who have trespassed into his property. 11. If that is the case, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Rent Controller for seeking recovery of rent and possession from the tenant in accordance with law. In case the persons in occupation are trespasser's then also remedy is to file criminal case or seek possession by moving the civil Court. 12. The writ petition as framed is not competent, as respondent No.1 and 2 are not the competent authority, to decide the question whether any person trespassed in the property. 13. The question raised is to be decided either in the civil suit or by the Rent Controller. It is not understood how the writ jurisdiction can be invoked to settle the civil dispute between the parties, especially when the allegation in the writ petition itself show that unknown persons trespassed and are in possession. The persons in possession are also not before this Court. In case the petitioner feels that the order of this Court is violated then also the remedy lies some where else and not filing the second writ petition. 14. The writ petition being totally misconceived amounts to misuse of the process of the Court. Dismissed with costs which are assessed as Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only). Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.