m THE HIGH COURT 05' JUDICA'rURE AT BILASPUR (C.G. w.E.No. 9L3 3 OF 2001,, BETWIEEN Shiv mar Jaiswal S/O Satya Narayan Jaiswa1,_aged about 47 years, resident of Main Road', Korba. PETITIONER A N DA,» E‘he Eranch Manager. Korba . The Regicnal Manager. Regional Officer, State Bank of Inéiia} Bilaspur . f ( ' 3tate Bank of India, Main Branch, RgsPoNDENTs M ;\.'M9? WRITm PETITIoN UNDER ARTICLEs 226/227 og- THE ) _, EW.W.W anéyrm Wm LQJ?’ bxr‘ea-Ig3 OQ W 200 WWW WWfEWW %a1%mal1é¥1 hrivastava. J. SB : Hon’bie $hri Manindra iv'lo'nan § 1.3-a4-2e11 Shri Anup Maiumdar‘ counsel for i? Shri Gautam Bhaduri, counsei fort Heard. This’ petition has been fiied by t respondents to make payment of rent to premises. Case of the petitioner is that the p< — Anian Kumar Chakrovarty on rent for Chakrovar‘ry established a plastic facton petitioner. Later on, dispute arose betwe Grace Piastic Factory and the responde possession of the movable property and r Learned oounsei for the petitione gave notice to respondent l bank to vaoat premise and it is oniy during the pendr possession of the premises has been har Learned counsei for the petitione which the bank had iocked the premises the petitioner) the bank is iiabie to pay r He submits that though the petitioner in receive rent at the rate of Rs.5,000i— per appiication for amendment in the petition is entitled to payment of rent at the rati certificate of standard rent issued by the petitioner subm'rts that the respondents petitioner at the rate stated hereinabove. On the other hand, learned cou a ie petitioner. ‘ie respondents. he petitioner praying for direction to the the petttioner for occupation of petitioner’s :titioner has rented out his premises tocone Rs.5.000/- per month The said Anjan r in the premises taken on rent from the en Anjan Chakrovarty — Proprietor of lvifs int i Bank and the bank in order to take 1ac'ninery1 locked the premises. submitted that even though the petitioner e the premises, the bank did not vacate the ancy of the petition that on 2ti‘T2r‘O2, the ded over to the petitioner. ’ contended that during the period through and retained possession of the property of ant to the petitioner at an appropriate rater he petition had stated that he is entitled to month but the petitioner has now moved an in which the petitioner has claimed that he of Rs.‘i2,637f~ per month, in view of the Coiiector, Korba. Learned counsel for the 3e directed to make payment of rent to the sel for the respondents submitted that the premises which were iet out for rent to A jan Chakrovarty — Proprietor of iviis. Grace maths? WWEW‘W may 113% wPW/%3 5;?200 WW Wat mmmw wwwviwmn ,Q f émxmemém Mastic Factory) the bank was errtitied to take appropriate steps towards attachment of the property l inciuo‘ing plant and machinery which were kept én the factory. He further submits that the bank has already initiated proceedings towards recovery or‘ rent and the circumstances in which the bank had proceeded against the borrower and attached piedgeo‘ movabie prope ties, which were kept in the premises, the respondent is not iiabie for payment of any amount. He further submtts that as there was no reiationship of land iord and tenant, therefore, the bank is not iiabte for payment of any rent to the petitioner His iast submission is that the oiaim of damages invoives disputed questiors of facts and the writ petition 1's not maintainabie. Taking into consideration, the SJbmissions made by iearned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration tnat soon after fiiing of the writ petition, the possession of the premises was handed over to the petitioner, i am not inciined to entertain this petition only for the purposes of ascertaining the amount of damages. The petitioner, for the purposes of recovery of damages may fiie suit. So far as claim for rent from the respondent I iciank is concerned, the same appears to be misconceived, There was no reiattonship of gland lord and tenant between the petitioner and the bank. However, in respect ct the petitioner‘s ciaim for damages for the period during which the respondent /’ bank retained possession of the premises in the garb of attachment ” the movabie property, the petitioner is at compiete iiberty to ciaim damages as ci imed by him in this petition. To my mind, there are no extr ordinary grounds warranting, this Court, to grant damages or compensation to the petitioner by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articie 226 of the Con titution of india, in the resuit, this petition is nnaiiy disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy towards ciaim of compensation etc. in accordance r with iaw by taking recourse to remedy of filing suit or otherwise S Sdl Manindra- Mohan Shrivastava, Judge freepti WI} more.