IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9229/2026 Decided on: 18.06.2026 Om Prakash Soni …..Petitioner Versus Chairman, H.P. Gramin Bank & Ors. ......Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Khulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs : - “(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to vacate and hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner forthwith to protect the structure and thereafter same will be leased out to the respondent bank (b) Issue directions permitting the petitioner to demolish and reconstruct the unsafe portion of the building (c). Direct respondents to shift the branch to alternative premises in public safety interest.” 2. The case of the petitioner, as canvassed by his learned counsel, is that he is the owner of the land comprised in Khewat 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Khatauni No. 67min/75, Khasra No. 239, measuring 00-12-10 bigha, situated at Mohal Katipari-536, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. On the said land, the petitioner built a house, which was leased out to the respondent-Bank w.e.f. 22.08.2015. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent-Bank for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Padhar, District Mandi, which is still pending adjudication. The said suit has been instituted as the property is situated in a rural area and, therefore, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act is not applicable. Further case of the petitioner is that, being the lawful owner of the property, he had started construction of a new building adjacent to the rented accommodation in possession of the respondent- Bank. The ground floor of the new building has been raised; Slab of the first storey was being laid; First storey was partly towards the rented building and the pillars had to be raised for construction of the second storey. The pillars could be raised only by dismantling the 'Chhajja' of the old building. The petitioner moved an application in the aforementioned civil suit seeking permission to dismantle the 'Chhajja' of the old building and to raise construction of the new building adjacent to the tenanted building; however, the application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had explored other modes for construction after seeking 3 expert advice, however, no other method was found suitable, as the expert opined that the outer wall of the rented building was unsafe and new construction could not be raised without repairing the same. It is in this background that the petitioner has instituted the instant petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent- Bank to vacate and hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner in order to enable him to demolish the old tenanted building and reconstruct the unsafe portion thereof. A further direction has been prayed to direct the respondent-Bank to shift its branch to alternative premises in public interest. 4. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has already taken recourse to civil remedy for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. A civil suit has been preferred by him for declaration and permanent prohibitory & mandatory injunction against the respondent-Bank, admittedly for the same relief as prayed for in the instant writ petition. The civil suit is still pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge, Padhar, District Mandi. An interim application moved by the petitioner in the aforesaid civil suit for the relief as claimed in the instant writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In the given facts and circumstances, the writ petition cannot be held to be maintainable. Accordingly, the same is 4 dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th June, 2026 (rohit)