Eviction Is A Civil Matter, Police Cannot Meddle In Landlord-Tenant Disputes: J&K High Court

The ruling was passed by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while dismissing a writ petition filed by Abdul Majid Dar, a resident of Srinagar, who had approached the Court alleging police inaction over a complaint he had filed concerning the poor structural condition of a shopping line built over his ancestral property.

Slamming Dar for approaching police, this, without arraying them as a party in the matter, Justice Nargal observed,

“.. police have no jurisdiction to intervene in disputes that are purely civil in nature, including those arising between landlord and tenant. Such matters are within the exclusive cognizance of competent courts and fall outside the scope of criminal law enforcement agencies i.e. police”

Case Background:

The petitioner, appearing in person, informed the Court that he owns six out of thirteen shops constructed on his ancestral land, many of which are currently occupied by tenants. He contended that these shops were in a severely dilapidated state and posed a threat to life and property.

A private structural engineering company had inspected the building and reported visible and progressive cracks, recommending urgent repairs. Dar subsequently lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Batamaloo, seeking intervention to avert a possible mishap.

When the police allegedly did not take sufficient action, the petitioner approached the High Court for protection of his legal and fundamental rights, primarily demanding that appropriate steps be taken based on the structural inspection report.

Courts Observations:

The Court, at the outset, noted that the petition was not maintainable for multiple reasons. Most significantly, it underlined that the police have no jurisdiction to intervene in disputes that are purely civil in nature, including those arising between landlord and tenant. Such matters are within the exclusive cognizance of competent courts and fall outside the scope of criminal law enforcement agencies.

The Court also pointed out a critical procedural flaw that the petitioner had failed to array the Revenue Authorities and the tenants as party-respondents, despite seeking relief that would directly affect their rights. The only parties impleaded, the court noted, were police officers, whose statutory role is limited to maintaining law and order not resolving civil property disputes.

Justice Nargal further held that the private structural engineering report submitted by the petitioner held no legal sanctity as it had been procured independently without any mandate from a government agency.

“.. The report submitted by the aforesaid private Structural Company has been procured by the petitioner on his own without any explicit direction from any Government Agency and the said report has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law and cannot be relied upon”, the court remarked.

The Court observed that the petition was nothing more than an indirect attempt to force the eviction of tenants under the guise of safety concerns:

"The petitioner, in order to evict the tenants from the said shops, has applied pressure tactics by filing the said complaint before the SHO concerned... What the petitioner could not achieve directly is being sought to be achieved indirectly by the medium of instant petition."

It warned against this misuse of the criminal process and stressed that eviction of tenants is a civil matter requiring an order from a competent court, not an act of executive overreach by the police.

“ A landlord cannot approach the police authority i.e. SHO concerned to directly evict tenants. Eviction is a civil matter that requires an order from the competent court of jurisdiction which has not happened in this case. The police can assist in executing a court order for eviction, if there is such direction by the competent court and not otherwise and the police agency cannot initiate the process or remove tenants without legal mandate”, Justice Nargal underscored.

The Court further noted that the present petition did not involve any element of public law or violation of public rights and thus did not warrant invocation of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Concluding that the petition was “misconceived” and “devoid of merit,” Justice Nargal dismissed it stating,

"The petitioner has chosen a novel method of filing the instant petition with a view to oust the tenants from tenancy by applying pressure tactics through the agency of the police and that too without arraying them as party-respondents, which is not permissible under law."

However, the Court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from pursuing an appropriate remedy under civil law by approaching a competent authority or court.

Case Title: Abdul Majid Dar Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 229

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment