Article 226 is not the forum to adjudicate disputed lease rights and possession.

The petitioner claimed rights over “Vernon House” through an addendum assigning to it the benefit of a registered lease entered into by its group company and respondent No. 5.

After a dispute over rent and termination of the lease, the petitioner alleged forcible dispossession and sought, among other reliefs, registration of an FIR and police protection under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 538 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner had also instituted Com. O.S. No. 340/2026, which was pending before the Commercial Court.

Respondent No. 5 disputed the petitioner’s claimed rights and possession, including the legal effect of the unregistered addendum and alleged rent and electricity arrears.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to writ relief, including directions concerning police action and protection, where the dispute arose from competing claims under a lease and involved disputed questions of fact.

Whether the writ petition was an appropriate forum to adjudicate the parties’ civil dispute when related civil proceedings were pending.

The Court considered its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in light of the nature of the dispute and the pending civil proceedings.

It applied the principle that a dispute turning on contested civil rights and disputed questions of fact is not appropriately adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Although the petition invoked Article 227 and Section 538 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court did not interpret or apply Section 538, nor did it rely on any cited precedent.

The competing claims concerned the parties’ rights under the lease, the petitioner’s asserted assignment under an unregistered addendum, possession of the property, termination of the lease, and alleged arrears.

The Court noted that the petitioner had already brought a civil suit concerning the dispute and that the suit was pending.

It concluded that the issues were disputed and ex facie civil in nature, and therefore unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.