Disputed Arrears of Rent Cannot Be Decided In Writ Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for recovering disputed arrears of enhanced rent against a public sector bank when the underlying claim hinges on unresolved questions of fact.

Justice Krishna Rao dismissed a landlord's plea seeking directions against Punjab National Bank for unpaid rent revisions, holding that monetary claims arising out of non-statutory lease contracts with disputed terms must be adjudicated before a competent civil court.

Writ Court Cannot Decide Disputed Questions of Fact

The High Court observed that while the bank had agreed to an enhanced rent of Rs. 40 per sq. ft. prospectively under a new lease deed, it had not admitted to paying the increased rate retrospectively for the period between the expiry of the old lease and the execution of the new one.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Now, the petitioner is claiming the arrears of rent after the agreement expired and before the agreement is entered. The respondent/Bank is denying with regard to the said claim of the petitioner. Whether the Bank is liable to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the petitioner from 1st October, 2022 to 25th September, 2024, is the disputed question of fact. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have denied with regard to increase of rent from Rs. 13/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. Whether the said rent of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. is to be paid from 1st October, 2022 till 25th September, 2024 is required to be decided only after the evidence. In the agreement, the petitioner has not shown that for the said period, the Bank is required to pay the said amount at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Pradip Dhar (supra), there is an admitted rent in terms of the agreement and as such, the Writ Court as well as the Appellate Court had held that the writ petition is maintainable. In the present case, though there is an admission with regard to Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. per month, i.e. in terms of the agreement which has been given effect to from 1st March, 2024 but the arrears is not admitted and thus, which is not admitted and is disputed by one party, this Court cannot entertain the writ application."

Background

The petitioner had leased a property measuring 3309 sq. ft. to United Bank of India (later merged into Punjab National Bank) in 2013. Upon expiry of the lease on September 30, 2022, the petitioner requested a renewal at an enhanced rate of Rs. 40 per sq. ft. per month. Subsequently, the bank agreed to retain 1441 sq. ft. at the requested rate and surrender the remaining portion. A fresh lease deed was executed on April 10, 2024, effective from March 1, 2024, and the excess portion was formally surrendered on September 24, 2024.

The landlord filed a writ petition claiming Rs. 17,93,817/- as arrears of rent together with interest for the interim period between October 1, 2022, and September 25, 2024, at the enhanced rate for the entire premises. The petitioner relied on Pradip Dhar Vs. United Bank of India & Ors., Ajay Vijh Vs. Indian Banks Association and Ors. ( "MANU/SC/0670/2026": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 628), and Bhatpara Municipality, represented by its Board of Councillors and Others Vs. Mayank Enterprise, represented by Omprakash Singh to maintain that public sector entities are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when non-payment follows admitted liabilities.

Opposing the petition, the Bank questioned its maintainability, citing M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others ( "(1977) 3 SCC 457": 1977 CaseBase(SC) 104), ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others ( "(2004) 3 SCC 553": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 82), Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. Tapas Dhara and Ors., and Har Shankar and Others Vs. The Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr. and Others ( "(1975) 1 SCC 737": 1975 CaseBase(SC) 438). The Bank contended that the underlying dispute was purely contractual, non-statutory, and involved disputed factual allegations regarding retroactive applicability of rent enhancement.

Accepting the Bank's contentions on maintainability, the High Court held that the unadmitted arrears required regular trial and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies.

Case Details:
Case No.: WPA No. 3222 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:1308
Case Title: Sailendra Nath Mukherjee VS. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashim Kr. Routh, Ms. Ananya Mondal, Ms. Manishka Dhar, Mr. Subhayan Barik, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Chapales Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Anandamayee Dutta, Dr. Gargy Basu, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 1651