JUDGMENT : P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for following reliefs :- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order, issue a direction or necessary command by way of writ of mandamus, directed the respondents they opened the Main gate of Hospital with immediately effect and maintained the safety of Hospital. b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be further directed to competent authority they will start suitable departmental enquiry against the respondent No. 05 & 06 for unauthorized help of Respondent No. 07. c. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other or further order(s) deemed fir and necessary in the facts and circumstances in the matter.” 2. The primary dispute which the petitioners have raised in the present writ petition is the action on the part of the respondent No. 7 along with the Local Administration whereby the respondent No. 7 is said to have put a lock on the main gate and the main entrance of the premises which the respondent No. 7 has rented out to the petitioners for the purpose of running a multi-specialty hospital. 3. The whole dispute revolves around the premises which the petitioners had taken on rent from the respondent No. 7 in the year 2019 and the agreement between the parties was for an initial period of 5 years with renewable clause. The petitioners pursuant to agreement had taken possession over the property and had established a full fledged hospital. 4. However, meanwhile, some dispute arose between the partners running the hospital and in the process respondent No. 7 issued a notice of termination of tenancy agreement on 21.10.2021 giving 3 months' time. Though, on completion of 90 days, the petitioners have not vacated the premises. 5. Meanwhile, the petitioners have also approached the Rent Controlling Authority seeking for possession of the hospital building for some more time so that the petitioners may go in for an alternative accommodation and shift the hospital itself. In between there appears to be some disputes between the petitioners and the respondent No. 7 and it appears there was also a free fight between both the parties and complaint & counter complaints were lodged before the Police Station. In between there appears to be some disputes between the petitioners and the respondent No. 7 and it appears there was also a free fight between both the parties and complaint & counter complaints were lodged before the Police Station. Thereafter, again on 20.01.2022 in the presence of the all the disputing parties and the Local Administration and the Police Authority, the respondent No. 7 is said to have locked the main entrance of the said hospital and the main gate as well and the petitioners have been permitted to use the entrance that was available on the side of the building. This locking of the main gate and the main entrance has led to filing of the present writ petition seeking for an appropriate relief. 6. From the brief facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, It goes without saying that apparently the dispute involved in the present writ petition primarily is a landlord-tenants dispute, a dispute relating to a property, a dispute between two private parties. The role of the State is only to the extent of taking control of the law and order situation. 7. What is also evidently clear from the proceedings is that the petitioners, in respect of the tenancy and the notice of termination of tenancy given by the respondent No. 7, have already approached the concerned Rent Controlling Authority. From the documents enclosed along with the present writ petition, the Rent Controlling Authority is also seized of the matter and vide order dated 19.01.2022, notices were ordered to be issued to the private respondents and matter is ordered to be listed on 29th of the January 2022. 8. Since, the locking of the premises by the respondents took place subsequent to the notices issued by the Rent Controlling Authority, the petitioners have approached this Court for an appropriate direction. As has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, this Court primarily is of the view that the dispute involved in the present writ petition is between the two private individuals and the matter pertains to a tenancy agreement and the termination thereof. Moreover, the petitioners-the tenants have already approached the Statutory Authority under the Rent Control Laws. 9. As has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, this Court primarily is of the view that the dispute involved in the present writ petition is between the two private individuals and the matter pertains to a tenancy agreement and the termination thereof. Moreover, the petitioners-the tenants have already approached the Statutory Authority under the Rent Control Laws. 9. Given the fact that the respondents have availed the remedy of approaching the Rent Controlling Authority and the matter is seized for hearing on the application for interim relief as well on 29th of January, 2022, today being 25th of January 2022 this Court at this juncture does not find it to be an appropriate case for invoking the writ jurisdiction. The petitioners would be free to move an appropriate application before the Rent Controlling Authority in respect of the subsequent events that transpired after the issuance of notice by the Tribunal on 19.01.2022. On the next date of hearing, the Rent Controlling Authority is expected to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law considering the pleadings that are brought on record before the Tribunal. The petitioners would also be at liberty to press his application for interim relief before the Rent Controlling Authority and which the Rent Controlling Authority is directed to take up and decide the same on priority basis. 10. This Court is reluctant to entertain the present writ petition as on date for the reason that there are hotly disputed questions of facts involved in the matter particularly in respect of as to who has put the lock on the main gate and main entrance. The petitioners contend that it has been put by the Police Authorities whereas the respondent No. 7 claims to have put it by himself. Secondly, this Court also finds that the dispute is exclusively between two private persons in an exclusively private dispute arising out of an agreement of tenancy between the petitioners and the respondent No. 7. 11. It is by now a well settled position of law that the writ petitions in matters pertaining to disputes relating to properties, matters which are otherwise purely civil dispute, involving two private individuals and the matters of landlord and tenant would not be entertained by the High Court exercising the writ jurisdiction 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment decided on 28.02.2019, in the case of Ramakrishna Mission & Anr. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment decided on 28.02.2019, in the case of Ramakrishna Mission & Anr. v. Kago Kunya & Ors., reported in (2019) 16 SCC 303 passed in Civil appeal No. 2394 of 2019, has in a very categorical terms that contracts of pure private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction. 13. The view of this Court is also supported by another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Roshina T v. Abdul Azeez K.T., where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned entertainment of writ petitions involving disputed questions of facts. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions made in the preceding paragraphs, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.