HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10473 of 2010 Date:08.9.2010 Between: Mrs.Mehar Banu Gillani. ……….Petitioner. And The Chairman Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and others. ………Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10473 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 herein in paying rents to the 4th respondent for the premises in ground floor bearing No.3-6-271 (Old A-10- 271), Sudhir Tapani Towers, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent bank not to pay any rents to the 4th respondent for the said premises as the property is under litigation as per the letter dated 1-4-2010. This writ petition is hopelessly misconceived. There appears to be a title dispute between the writ petitioner herein and the 4th respondent with regard to the property comprising on the ground floor situated at premises bearing No.3-6-271 (Old A-10-271), Sudhir Tapani Towers, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. On the last occasion, this very writ petitioner instituted W.P.No.26439 of 2009 impleading the present respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 herein as respondents 1 to 3 & 7 to the said writ petition. W.P.No.26439 of 2009 has been instituted seeking writ of mandamus for declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in opening the Branch of a Public Sector Bank in petitioner’s premises by colluding with respondents No.5 to 7 therein as bad in law. That writ petition came to be dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies in a Civil Court, in view of the disputes, which are pending between her on one hand and the lessors of that premises namely; the 7th respondent therein on the other. It is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that a civil suit bearing O.S.No.473 of 2007 has been instituted on the file of III Additional Civil Judge, Hyderabad, which has been now been made over to XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad as to the title of the property in question. So in the said suit M/s.Tapani Constructions Private Limited, its directors and the writ petitioner herein are all impleaded as defendants 1, 2, 3 & 4. The present writ petitioner was contesting the said suit. In view of the disputes concerning the title to the property in question between the writ petitioner herein and the 4th respondent, no questions relating to the right of the 4th respondent to deal with the said property can be determined in a writ proceeding. The question as to whether the 4th respondent is justified or entitled to lease out a premises title over which is in dispute is a matter required to be adjudicated only by the Civil Court. Merely because branch of a public sector institution is opened is the disputed premises, the writ petition cannot be instituted. Whether respondents 1 to 3 herein are liable to pay rents from the premises hired by them is purely a question of fact arising out of the contractual obligations between respondents 1 to 3 on one hand and the 4th respondent, who leased out the said premises, on the other and the same cannot be resolved in this writ petition. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of this writ petition does not disentitled the petitioner herein to seek appropriate relief/remedy from the competent Civil Court independently or in the suit, which is already pending between her on one hand and the 4th respondent herein on the other. No order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date:08.09.2010. mrb