Lessee becomes trespasser upon lease expiry, precluding legal claims for equivalent alternative allotment or compensation.

The petitioner’s brother was initially allotted a shop on rent in 1977

Following eviction in 1988, the petitioner was allotted an alternative plot measuring 7x7 square meters at Itwara Bazar, Khandwa

A lease agreement was executed on February 25, 1988, for a period of two years and eleven months, stipulating that renewal was at the respondents' discretion and no right would accrue to the petitioner post-expiry

In 2013, following safety directives regarding overhead water tanks, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner to remove his shop

The shop was removed, and the petitioner was temporarily allotted a smaller area of 8x8 square feet

The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus for the allotment of the original 7x7 square meter area, compensation for losses, and reconstruction costs, alleging the action was discriminatory as other encroachments remained

1. Whether the petitioner possesses a vested legal right to claim allotment of a plot of the same original dimensions (7x7 square meters) after the expiry of the lease period

2. Whether the removal of the petitioner's shop for public utility purposes was arbitrary or discriminatory

3. Whether claims for compensation and damages involving disputed questions of fact can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The court primarily applied Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides for the determination of a lease by efflux of time

It further relied on the precedent established in Smt. Shanti Devi vs. Amal Kumar Banerjee (1981) 2 SCC 199, which held that once a lease expires by efflux of time and there is no "holding over" under Section 116, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases, and the occupant becomes a trespasser

The court also applied the principle that discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding damages or compensation

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s legal right to the land was governed by the 1988 lease agreement, which had expired after two years and eleven months without renewal

Applying Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act and the Shanti Devi precedent, the court determined that the petitioner’s status had reverted to that of a trespasser, thereby extinguishing any statutory or fundamental right to hold the land

Regarding the claim of discrimination, the court noted that the land was reclaimed for a public interest project under the UIDSSMT Scheme for water preservation, which outweighed the petitioner's private interest

The court further observed that the petitioner had accepted the alternative 8x8 square foot plot without initial protest, only raising objections as an afterthought

The court held that the petitioner's demand for compensation involved disputed factual inquiries that are outside the scope of writ jurisdiction

The court found the respondents' actions were in the interest of public safety and utility and were not arbitrary

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating the petitioner was not deprived of his fundamental right to carry on business as he had been accommodated with an alternative site in the market area

No order as to costs was made