JUDGMENT : DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. The petitioner complains of police inaction. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is of advance age and also his wife. Both the petitioner and his wife had a tenanted premises which they have since vacated. The petitioner had granted a tenancy for 11 (Eleven) months. The same was subsequently renewed. Since, the petitioner is now homeless, the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for himself and for his wife. A civil suit is likely to take for a long time. The Police should vacate such tenancy. 3. The State is represented. 4. The submissions of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner establishes that, there are civil disputes between the landlord and tenant. A writ petition does not lie for the purpose of evicting a tenant. A tenant enjoys certain statutory rights under the tenancy laws. Such statutory rights cannot be obviated through a complaint of police inaction or through a complaint lodged by the petitioner with the police. 5. In such circumstances, no further interference is called for. 6. W. P. No.3307 (W) of 2019 is dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.