Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Maintain Possession After Lease Expiry Amid Disputed Contractual Facts

The Petitioner, a leaseholder of commercial property at the Electronics Complex, Indore for over 8 years, challenged an eviction order dated 04/06/2026 issued by Respondent No. 1

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents were attempting forceful ejectment without due process, violating a previous High Court order in WP 31127/2025

While the Petitioner sought the appointment of an Arbitrator (AC No. 160/2025), the Respondents argued that the lease had expired in March 2025, no extension was granted, and a new lease had already been executed in favor of a third-party successful bidder (the Caveator)

The Petitioner sought to quash the eviction order and prevent coercive action

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in a dispute arising from a contractual lease agreement

2. Whether the Petitioner, whose lease had expired, is entitled to protection against eviction through writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not the appropriate forum for resolving disputed questions of fact and law arising from contractual matters

The rights of lessons and lessees should be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or an Arbitral Tribunal

State of U.P. and Others v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and Others {(1989) 2 SCC 505} and Sajni v. Indore Development Authority {2012 (1) MPLJ 4} regarding the requirement of "due process of law" for eviction

The Court found that since the Petitioner's lease expired in March 2025 and no extension was granted, their continued occupation could not be considered lawful

Despite the Petitioner’s claim of "forceful ejectment," the Court observed that the impugned communication merely informed the Petitioner to hand over possession or face legal proceedings via suit, which constitutes following the due process of law

The Court determined that the Petitioner was attempting to use the writ petition to delay the rights of the new successful bidder (the Caveator)

The Court held that exercising discretionary powers was unwarranted because the dispute involved complex factual questions and the Petitioner had failed to avail themselves of the alternative efficacious remedies of arbitration or civil suit

No relief could be granted under Article 226 as the matter pertains to contractual disputes and the Petitioner’s lease had expired

The Court ordered the dismissal of the petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the Petitioner, to be paid to the Indore High Court Bar Association within seven days