IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 2048 of 2008 Date of decision: 23. 7. 2009 Neelam Dass …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 .no For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General, with Mr. Vikas Rathore,and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra Dy. Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to decide the claim of the petitioner and direct the respondents to pay rent @ 2000/- per month w.e.f. September, 1997 along with 9% interest thereupon till date. No other relief has been prayed for. The admitted facts are that the petitioner himself handed over the premises in question to the respondent-State for setting up of a Primary Health Centre. As per his 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - averments, he had agreed not to charge any monthly rent for the period of one year. Thereafter, after expiry of one year, he appears to have made some representation praying that some rent be fixed. No action was taken hence the present writ petition. After going through the record, we find that no writ can be issued in this case since the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to claim rent/mesne profit/damages for the alleged unauthorized occupation and in the said suit, he can also claim the possession of the premises. The disputed questions as to what is the rate of rent, from which date the petitioners is entitled to claim rent etc. cannot be decided in writ proceedings. We therefore, reject this writ petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. (Deepak Gupta),J. July 23, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)