Writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate disputed contractual rent arrears; claimants must pursue civil remedies.

The petitioner-landlord had executed a lease deed dated 25 February 2013 with United Bank of India, subsequently amalgamated with Punjab National Bank, concerning the entire first floor of premises No. 168/D, Keshab Chandra Sen Street, Kolkata, measuring 3,309 sq. ft.

The lease expired on 30 September 2022, after which the petitioner sought renewal at ₹40 per sq. ft. per month.

The Bank agreed to retain 1,441 sq. ft. at that rate and surrender the remaining 1,868 sq. ft.

A fresh lease deed was executed on 10 April 2024, effective from 1 March 2024, for the retained 1,441 sq. ft.

The petitioner claimed arrears of rent, GST, municipal taxes, surcharges and interest for the period from 1 October 2022 to 25 September 2024, amounting to ₹17,93,817 after adjustment of payments.

Upon the Bank’s failure to make the claimed payment despite notice dated 2 December 2025, the petitioner invoked Article 226 seeking directions for inquiry and payment.

The Bank contested maintainability, asserting that the dispute arose from a private lease transaction and involved disputed contractual and factual questions.

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable for recovery of alleged arrears of rent arising from a private lease agreement between the petitioner and the Bank.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to recover rent at ₹40 per sq. ft. for the entire premises of 3,309 sq. ft. from 1 October 2022 to 25 September 2024, together with taxes, surcharges and interest.

Whether the disputed claim could be adjudicated by the Writ Court or required determination by a civil court upon evidence.

The Court applied the settled principle that although writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may, in appropriate cases, be invoked against entities performing public functions and may extend to contractual matters, a writ court ordinarily will not adjudicate disputed questions of fact or grant recovery based on a contested private contract.

It considered M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, (1977) 3 SCC 457, and Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, (1975) 1 SCC 737, on the limited availability of writ remedies for enforcement of purely contractual rights.

The Court also considered ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553, and the coordinate Bench decision in Pradip Dhar v. United Bank of India & Ors., WPA 13468 of 2019, where writ relief was granted in the presence of an admitted liability.

It further noted Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Tapas Dhara & Ors., FMA 14 of 2023, holding that specific enforcement of lease terms should ordinarily be pursued before an appropriate forum.

The Court distinguished the present matter from Pradip Dhar, where the liability and rent were admitted.

Although the Bank had agreed to rent of ₹40 per sq. ft. under the subsequent lease effective from 1 March 2024, it had not admitted liability to pay that rate retrospectively for the period from 1 October 2022 to 25 September 2024.

The Bank’s affidavit specifically disputed the alleged enhancement from ₹13 to ₹40 per sq. ft.

The Court also found that the subsequent agreement did not establish that the Bank was contractually bound to pay ₹40 per sq. ft. for the earlier disputed period.

Determining the applicable rent, the period of liability, the effect of surrender of part of the premises, and the petitioner’s entitlement to interest would therefore require examination of contractual terms and evidence.

Since the claim was neither admitted nor capable of determination without resolving disputed facts, the matter fell outside the proper scope of writ adjudication.

WPA No. 3222 of 2026 was accordingly dismissed.

The dismissal was made without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent court for recovery of the alleged arrears of rent in accordance with law.