Petsiioiier Respondente GOURT OF GHHATTiSQARH: BiLASPUR WriS Petition Ho. 3814 of 2005 Mohd. Usman S/b. Late Sheikh Ahamad Aged about 57 years, R/o. Baijnatn Para, Rajpu?" Versus 1) Municipai Corporation, Ralpur, through Commissjoner Munjcipai Corporation,, Rajpur, Dlst Ralpur 2) State of C.G.through Seoretary, Urban Deptt. & Adminlstration, D.K.S, Bhawan, Ralpur. CWrit Petition under Articie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Indla) SB: Hon'bSe Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Preserst: Shri Gautam Bhaduri, counsei for the petitioner, Shri HB. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate wlth Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsei for the respondent No.1. Shri Ravlndra Agrawal, Panet Lav^yer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 128' February, 2008) Learned counsei appearing for the petltioner submits that the petitioner was aliotted the disputed plot/shop on the basis of a lease deed executed on 31-12-1970 v/ithout specifying the iease period on month to month basis. The petltioner otalms his right on the basss of the said jease deed to run his business on the said plot/snop. 2) Shri H.B. Agrawai, learned Sr. counse! appearing wltn Shri Pankaj Agrawai, counsel for the respondent No.1 categoriciiy states that sinoe tne iease has not been renewed, the petltloner oannot ciaim any ov^nership or titie over the ahop in dispute. Learned counsei further submfts that no steps for demoition/dlspossession of the petitioner from the shop in dispute, shaii be taken for the statutory period as prescribed underSection 401 ofthe Chhattisgarh jVlunteipai Corporation Act, 1956. 3) Be that as it may, since the disputed questions of factB are Involved, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction undr Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia, cannot resoive the disputed questions of facts. Raju 4) Aocordingjy, the petltion is dismissed as not malntainabie. However, tne petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to other alternative forum, may be; Civii Court for appropriate reiief. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge m