Police cannot use criminal searches to dispossess tenants, Madras High Court says; shop keys to be returned to tenant

The petitioner was a tenant operating a scrap-material and waste-paper recycling business at premises owned by the fifth respondent.

In connection with a case alleging possession of stolen railway goods under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the police searched the premises, locked and sealed them on 11 December 2025, and handed the keys to the landlady, thereby preventing the petitioner from accessing the business premises.

The petitioner obtained anticipatory bail and unsuccessfully sought relief before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, whose Registry declined to take his application on file on jurisdictional grounds.

The landlady had previously pursued eviction proceedings, which were dismissed.

The police submitted that the seal had been removed on 1 October 2026.

Whether the police could, in the course of a search relating to an alleged criminal offence, seal the petitioner’s rented premises and thereby dispossess him without an order of a court.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the keys and continued possession pending lawful eviction proceedings.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may grant relief against unlawful State action.

The Court applied the principle that even a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed by the executive; dispossession must take place through the process of a court.

It held that police action taken under the guise of a search cannot be used indirectly to dispossess an occupant.

The Court also referred to Section 21(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, observing that the landlady could rely on a conviction in the criminal case to seek eviction through the statutory process.

The underlying criminal case invoked the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

The petitioner’s premises had been sealed following the police search, and the keys had been given to the landlady, effectively removing the petitioner from possession.

The Court considered this especially improper because the landlady had previously failed to obtain possession through eviction proceedings.

The police could prosecute the alleged offence and pursue conviction, but could not use the search or sealing of the premises to accomplish a dispossession that required court process.

The landlady’s counsel undertook to return the keys, while the Court preserved her ability to pursue eviction proceedings in accordance with law.

The fifth respondent was to hand over the keys to the petitioner on 8 October 2026, and was directed to produce them before the Court as stated by counsel.

The petitioner could continue in possession until an eviction order was obtained; the landlady remained free to initiate appropriate proceedings.

The matter was listed on 8 October 2026 for reporting compliance, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.