THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1122 of 2007 Date:02.11.2009 Between: Chand Pasha. ..Petitioner and The Mandal Revenue Officer and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1122 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner claims that the shop in premises bearing No.9-2- 69, Charles Market, Rezimental bazaar, Secunderabed, owned by the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad was leased to his great grand father and ever since then it is in their possession and enjoyment. The rent is said to be Rs.16/- per month and that the petitioner is in possession thereof from 1970 onwards. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have cut a big tree said to be in those premises, and it has resulted in damage to the premises. He prays for the relief of declaration that the action of the respondents in cutting the true is illegal and unjust and without jurisdiction, and to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the premises. The petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.15615 of 2007 stating that during the pendency of the writ petition, he was dispossessed from the premises and accordingly sought for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner does not dispute that the respondents are owners of the premises. Even assuming that the respondents have cut the tree, it is not understandable as to how the petitioner can object for it. So far as the relief in relation to the possession of the premises is concerned, the petitioner admits that he has been dispossessed from the premises during the pendency of the writ petition. In case the petitioner feels aggrieved by such an action, he has to file a suit for damages. The civil Court is better suited for determination of the disputed questions of fact including the one as to the existence of valid lease and the terms thereof and for any relief in the form of damages etc. Viewed from any angle, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the civil Court for proper remedy. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 02nd November, 2009 GHN