Limited time granted to vacate after lease expiry does not constitute lease renewal.

The petitioner operated a Sanchi Milk Parlour booth in the premises of G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, under agreements executed between the Medical College and Gwalior Co-operative Milk Union Ltd.

After expiry of the lease period, the Dean, G.R. Medical College, issued a communication dated 25 July 2025 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, followed by a notice dated 18 August 2025 indicating proposed allotment of the premises to Indian Coffee House.

The petitioner challenged these communications under Article 226 of the Constitution, initially seeking their quashing and extension of the lease from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026.

During arguments, however, the petitioner conceded that he was not pressing the challenge on merits or seeking renewal/extension of the lease, and requested six months’ time to shift his business and vacate the premises.

1. Whether the Court should adjudicate the validity of the impugned communications directing the petitioner to vacate the premises after expiry of the lease.

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted reasonable time to make alternative arrangements and peacefully hand over vacant possession of the premises.

3. Whether such time could be granted subject to conditions safeguarding the respondents’ right to obtain possession.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle that where the lease period has expired and the petitioner does not press the substantive challenge or seek renewal of the lease, the Court need not adjudicate the validity of the impugned communications.

The Court further applied the discretionary principle that limited equitable or administrative time may be granted to facilitate peaceful vacation and alternative arrangements, without creating or extending any leasehold, tenancy, or possessory right.

The indulgence was made conditional upon an undertaking, payment of rent and utility charges, non-creation of third-party rights, and strict vacation within the time granted.

Since expiry of the petitioner’s lease was undisputed, and the petitioner expressly abandoned the prayer for extension or renewal and did not press the challenge on merits, the Court declined to examine the validity of the impugned communications.

Nevertheless, considering the petitioner’s limited request for time to shift his business, the Court found it just to grant a short period for peaceful vacation.

The Court balanced this indulgence against the respondents’ entitlement to possession by requiring an undertaking within one week, prohibiting third-party interests or parting with possession, directing payment of all applicable charges, and barring any request for further extension.

It clarified that the arrangement would not amount to renewal, extension, or creation of any fresh lease or tenancy.

It granted the petitioner two months from 17 September 2026 to peacefully vacate and hand over vacant possession to the concerned authority, subject to the specified conditions.

The petitioner was required to furnish an undertaking within one week, pay all outstanding rent, lease and utility charges, refrain from creating third-party rights, and not seek further extension.

Failure to furnish the undertaking or vacate within the stipulated period would withdraw the protection granted and permit the respondents to take possession strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.