JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. The appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the connected application. 3. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 15th February, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 3307 (W) 2019 (Ajit Kumar Bhattacharya vs. The Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, Barrackpore & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred by writ petitioner, Ajit Kumar Bhattacharya. 5. The specific case, as sought to be made by the learned advocate for the appellant, is that her client is an eighty-four year old citizen and his wife is eighty-one years old. They have been rendered homeless by the private respondent no. 3, Krishna Muhuri, who was allowed to enter the appellant's premises in terms of an agreement which has since expired. It is contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that the private respondent no. 3, Krishna Muhuri, is a trespasser and is required to be evicted forthwith by the police authorities. She submits that the police have initiated some action against the private respondent. 6. In the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge - after considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties - observed that there are civil disputes between the landlord and tenant. The Court further held that the writ petition does not lie for the purpose of evicting a tenant and that 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. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition while observing that in such circumstances, no interference was called for. 7. While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge, we are, however, of the view that in the facts of the instant case, it cannot be ascertained with certainty as to the exact relationship between the appellant and the private respondent no. 3, Krishna Muhuri. Whether there actually exists a landlord-tenant relationship cannot be concluded with certainty by the writ Court. 3, Krishna Muhuri. Whether there actually exists a landlord-tenant relationship cannot be concluded with certainty by the writ Court. Even if the private respondent no. 3, Krishna Muhuri, is a trespasser - as sought to be contended by the learned advocate for the appellant - he cannot be evicted without following due process of law. 8. The learned advocate for the appellant has brought it to the notice of this Court that the police have initiated some action in the matter. 9. At this stage, the learned advocate for the State hands over a copy of the instruction received by him from the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station, namely, Naihati, Barrackpore Commissionerate, which may be taken on record. A copy of the same may be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant. The instruction reveals that investigation is in progress 10. In such circumstances, we are of the view that any observation made by the learned Single Judge while proceeding to dismiss the writ petition, shall not cause any prejudice to any action being taken by the police authorities in accordance with law. 11. With the above observation, the appeal and the connected application stand disposed of. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.