.i:~) Petltiorser Responeients HiQH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH: BiLASPUR Writ PeStion No. 3818 of 2005 Mohd. Ibrahim, S/o. Late Sheikh Ahamad, aged about 55 years, R/o. Baijnathpara, Raipur (CG). Versus 1) Municipai Corporation, Ralpur, through Commissioner, Municjpaj Corporation; Ralpur, Dist Raipur 2) State of C.G.through Secretary, Urban Deptt. & Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. CWrit Petition under Artiole 226/227 of ths Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnjhotri, J. Preseiit: Shri Gautam Bhaduri, counsel for the petitjoner. Shn H.B. Agravvai; Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri Ravindra Agrawai, Panei Lav^er for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12th February, 2008) Learned counset appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was ailotted the disputed pioVsnop on the basis of a iease deed executed on 31-12-1970 without specifying the lease period cn month to month basls. The petitioner ciaims his right on the basls of the said iease deed to run his business on the said ploVshop. 2) Shri H.B. Agrawai, iearned Sr. counsei appearing with Shri Pankaj Agrawa), counsel for the respondent No.1 categoricliy states that since the lease has not been renewed, the petitioner cannot ciaim any ownershlp or titie over the shop in dispute. Learned counsei further submits that no steps for demoition/dispossession of the petitioner from the shop sn dispute, shaii be taken for the statutory period as prescribaj under Section 401 ofthe Chhattisgarh Municipai Corporation Act, 1956. 3) Be that as it may, since the disputed questions of facts are invoived, this Court in exerclse of its extraordlnary jurlsdiction undr Articte 225 of the Constitution of India, cannot resoive the disputed questions offacts. 2.- (g). Kaiu 4) Accordingiy, the petitlon is dismissed as not maintainabie. However, the petitioner is at iiberty to take recourse to other aiternative forum, may be, Civii Court for appropriate reiief. Sd7- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^