Article 226 jurisdiction is inappropriate for disputed contractual rent claims requiring factual adjudication.

The Bihar State AIDS Control Society (BSACS) issued a tender dated 1 April 2022 for taking a godown on rent. The petitioner’s premises at Tulsi Nagar, Gola Road, Danapur, Patna, were selected, and an acceptance letter/work order was issued on 28 July 2022.

The petitioner alleged that BSACS took possession of approximately 3,940 sq. ft. of the premises and failed to pay rent for 19 months, from August 2022 to March 2024, claiming Rs. 17,50,783.77 and further compensation with interest.

The respondents disputed the extent of possession, stating that only 1,593.44 sq. ft. on the ground floor was handed over on 1 August 2022 and 1,053 sq. ft. on the first floor on 25 September 2022; they also alleged that the remaining area and required Walk-In-Coolers were not provided.

The respondents further contended that execution of the rent agreement was delayed because the petitioner objected to the proposed five-year lease and subsequently did not accept the draft 11-month agreement.

They stated that the premises were completely vacated on 29 August 2024 and that Rs. 14,67,722.33 was paid to the petitioner on 24 January 2025 towards rent for the area actually occupied, calculated at Rs. 22.90 per sq. ft.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 seeking payment of rent, compensation, interest, and related reliefs.

Whether the petitioner could obtain a writ under Article 226 directing payment of disputed rent and compensation when the extent of the premises actually handed over and occupied by BSACS was disputed and no formal rent agreement had been executed.

Whether the petitioner was required to pursue an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, instead of seeking adjudication of disputed contractual and factual claims in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the payment already made by BSACS for the area actually occupied disentitled the petitioner from seeking further relief in the writ proceedings.

The Court applied the constitutional principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly that writ jurisdiction should be exercised prudently and is ordinarily inappropriate where adjudication requires resolution of seriously disputed questions of fact or determination of contractual claims.

The Court also took note of the respondents’ contention that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

The Court emphasized that Article 226 jurisdiction remains effective and meaningful only when exercised in appropriate situations and held that a writ petition cannot be used to secure payment of disputed dues without first establishing the area actually placed under lease or occupation, particularly in the absence of an executed rent agreement.

The petitioner’s claim depended on disputed factual matters, including whether the entire 3,940 sq. ft. area was handed over, the period and extent of actual occupation, compliance with the requirement to install Walk-In-Coolers, and the effect of the absence of a formal rent agreement.

The respondents’ version materially differed from the petitioner’s assertion and was supported by their claim that rent had already been calculated and paid for the area actually occupied.

Since these matters could not appropriately be resolved summarily in writ jurisdiction, and because the petitioner had an alternative remedy, the Court declined to adjudicate the monetary and contractual claims under Article 226.

It characterized the attempt to obtain a direction for clearing disputed dues without first establishing the leased area as an abuse of the writ process.

Holding that the disputed questions regarding the area under occupation and the absence of a rent agreement were unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances.

No further writ direction for payment or possession was issued.