JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal and Rakesh Srivastava, JJ. – Heard Sri. Nirmit Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents; and, Sri. Arvind Razdan, Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 6. 2. Petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent 5 to unlock the tenanted portion of premises in which petitioner is tenant. Premises is known as Iqbal Manzil at Mohalla City Station, Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow. Petitioner has also sought a mandamus restraining respondents from interfering in possession of petitioner with respect to tenanted accommodation. He has also sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings initiated by respondent 5 under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. registered as Case No. D20161046003612 pending in the Court of City Magistrate, Collectorate, Lucknow. 3. It is said that building, known as Iqbal Manzil, is co-owned by respondent 6 and he is also landlord of the said premises with some others. A portion of said premises was let out to Late Sri. Ram Yadav (father of petitioner) for the purpose of running a Coaching Institute which ultimately functioned under the name and style of "M/s. Krishna Coaching Institute". After the death of petitioner's father, he has now inherited tenancy in the said accommodation. 4. There is some tenancy dispute between the parties and respondent 6 has filed PA Case No. 9 of 2016 seeking release of tenanted accommodation under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). Matter is pending in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow/Prescribed Authority. The grievance of petitioner is that on 22.05.2016 when petitioner reached tenanted accommodation and house-keeping staff was cleaning rooms etc., in the morning at around 10.00 AM, some people came and threatened petitioner's employees to leave tenanted accommodation. They also hurled abuses. At the same time it appears that respondent 6 had summoned Police force from Wazirganj Police Station and they locked main door of tenanted portion and directed petitioner 1 to come Wazirganj Police Station. Petitioner went and explained everything to respondent 5, but instead of listening to the grievance of petitioner, respondent 5 registered a Case under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. against petitioner, his son and driver and presented them before Magistrate for remand. Petitioner went and explained everything to respondent 5, but instead of listening to the grievance of petitioner, respondent 5 registered a Case under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. against petitioner, his son and driver and presented them before Magistrate for remand. Respondent 6 may have apprehended that it may not be able to get the accommodation released in the proceedings initiated under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972, which is pending before Prescribed Authority, hence attempted to short cut the matter by getting illegal cooperation from respondent 5 and has got petitioner, his son and driver implicated in the proceedings under Section 151 , 107, 116 Cr.P.C. and simultaneously with the help of respondent 5 has got tenanted accommodation locked so as to prevent petitioner from its user. It is said that Police has no authority to interfere with the matter and action of Police is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. When this matter came up before this Court on 31.05.2016, it directed learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions and matter was directed to be taken up today and that is how, it has come before us at the opening day of vacation. Respondent 6 is represented through Sri. Arvind Razdan, Advocate and respondents 1 to 5 are represented by learned Standing Counsel. 6. The concerned Sub-Inspector, Awadhesh Singh, from Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow is also present along with parawise narattive, which he has submitted to Chief Standing Counsel/Government Advocate, who has produced the same before us for perusal. 7. It is not in dispute that disputed accommodation is in possession of petitioner since long and a Coaching Institute was being run therein by father of petitioner 1 earlier, and, now petitioner 1. Though learned counsel appearing for respondent 6 said that petitioners have not paid rent for the last few years and for last some time Coaching Institute is also lying closed, but it is not in dispute that petitioners' tenancy in the disputed accommodation is still continuing and neither petitioners have vacated disputed premises nor any competent Court or authority has passed any release order or eviction order so as to entitle respondent 6-landlord to take possession of disputed premises from petitioners. In fact and law both, possession of disputed accommodation in the capacity of tenant is with petitioners. In fact and law both, possession of disputed accommodation in the capacity of tenant is with petitioners. That being so, petitioner has a right to egress and ingress in the let out accommodation and to use the same for the purpose of running Coaching Institute etc. Respondent 5 and 6 have neither any authority nor otherwise would be justified to interfere with such rights of petitioners unless authorised by law under some order passed by competent authority or otherwise. 8. So far as the narrative submitted by Sub-Inspector, Awadhesh Singh, is concerned, we have no manner of doubt after having gone through the same that action and conduct of Police authorities in the matter is neither impartial nor fair. It appears that Police authorities have acted in collusion with respondent 6. The Sub-Inspector concerned has taken a stand that petitioner 1 and his associates were creating law and order situation at the site for opening Coaching in Iqbal Manzil. The disputed premises was already under tenancy of petitioner 1 and a Coaching Institute was being run thereat for a long time. Hence, question of opening a Coaching thereat does not arise at all. 9. Further, concerned Police Sub-Inspector has said that in order to maintain peace and tranquility he took in custody petitioner 1, his associates, Shivam Yadav and Nafees, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. and produced them before Court. This is also surprising. The petitioner 1 is the person who is lawful tenant in the premises in dispute and has a legal right to run Coaching in the said premises which was being run since long. If there was any obstruction, obviously it was created by landlord but instead of taking any action against landlord, Police has taken into custody petitioner 1 and his associates. Moreover, if two groups were quarreling and creating law and order situation, it is understandable that persons on both the sides are taken into custody for maintaining peace and harmony but here action of Police is clearly partial, collusive and we have no hesitation in observing that it is illegal. We condemn the conduct and action of concerned Sub-Inspector, Awadhesh Singh, Police Station Wagirganj and are also of the view that he is not a fit person to be posted in such capacity so as to bear responsibility of acting as a fair, independent, impartial Police Officer for maintaining law and order situation. We condemn the conduct and action of concerned Sub-Inspector, Awadhesh Singh, Police Station Wagirganj and are also of the view that he is not a fit person to be posted in such capacity so as to bear responsibility of acting as a fair, independent, impartial Police Officer for maintaining law and order situation. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent 6 admitted that a Release Application is pending before Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow. Since respondent 6 has already availed remedy available to him and unless gets an order from competent Court/Authority justifying eviction/ejectment of petitioner 1 from premises in dispute, having effect of termination of his tenancy, we are of the view that respondents including respondent 6 cannot take action otherwise provided in law so as to create hindrance in peaceful possession of petitioners over premises in dispute. 11. We, accordingly, direct respondents not to interfere in the possession of petitioners of premises in dispute except in accordance with law. 12. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 13. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow for communication and information in respect to observations made above. Petition disposed of.