/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR \% CORANI: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma,JJ. WRIT APPEAL NO. 340/2011 Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, Slo Late Satya Narayan Jaiswal, aged about 56 years, Rio Main Road, Korba (C.G.) APPELLANT VERSUS 1. The Branch Manager. State Bank of India, Main Branch, Korba (C.G.). The Regional Manager,~ Regional Ofhcer, State Bank of India, Biiaspur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF SUB-SECTION (1 1 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2007 Appearance: Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the appeiiant. ORAL ORDER (21 .07.201 1) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,J. Heard on admission. Appeiiant- Shiv Kumar Jaiswal has tiled this appeal against the order dated 18.04.2011 passed in W.P No. 183/2002. Appellant was the landlord who had rented his premises to one- Anjan Kumar Chakravarty on monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-. Anjan Kumar Chakravarty established a plastic factory in the name and style of M/s. Grace Plastic Factory in the said premises. On a dispute between Mls. Grace Plastic Factory v and the respondent’s Bank, the Bank locked the factory premises to take possession of the movables and machinery of the borrower. The appellant A med writ petition for direction to the respondent’s Bank to make payment of , rent to the appellant for holding possession of his rented premises to Anjan Kumar Chakravarty. Soon after filing of the writ petition, the possession of the premises was handed over to the appellant. The learned Single Judge aiter u“, 2 WRIT APPEAL NO. 34012011 \ hearing Iearned counse! for the parties, declined to entertain the writ petition which in fact was only for the purposes of ascertaining the amount of damages, which according to the appellant, he was entitled to recover from the respondent's Bank. The learned Single Judge also observed that claim of rent from respondent’s Bank by the appellant was misconceived. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the Bank. It was also observed inrespect of the appellant‘s claim for damages for the period during which the respondent's Bank retained possession of the premises in the garb of attachment of the movable property, the appellant would be at liberty to claim it independently. The learned Single Judge held that there were no extraordinary grounds warranting granting of damages or compensation to the appellant by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of lndia and thus the writ petition was dismissed. Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that since the premises was in the possessionof the Bank, therefore, the Bank was liable to pay the damages equivalent to the existing rent of the premises and the same could have been awarded by the Writ Court. After going through the contents of the impugned order as also the writ petition, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition on the groundstaken by the appellant. The appellant has raised several pleas relating to his entitlement to recover the rent in form of damages from the Bank, which would require leading of evidence and would also require settlement of various issues of facts, which cannot be done by a writ Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any illegality and inhrmity in the impugned order passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ,‘i Judge . a Sdl- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge