Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Settle Disputed Dues Without Rent Agreement: Patna High Court

The High Court of Judicature at Patna has ruled that invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to claim unliquidated monetary dues in the absence of an executed rent agreement and in the face of disputed lease areas constitutes an abuse of the court process. Clarifying the strict boundaries of extraordinary writ powers in contractual matters, the Court held that litigants cannot bypass statutory remedies to resolve factual disputes regarding leased property.

A single-judge bench of Justice Alok Kumar heard a writ petition seeking directions against the Bihar State AIDS Control Society (BSACS) for the clearance of alleged pending rent dues.

Court's Rationale on Extraordinary Jurisdiction

Addressing the maintainability of the writ petition, the Patna High Court emphasized that public law remedies cannot be converted into recovery suits when basic lease terms and physical possession details are contested.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is an abuse of the court process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the authorities to protect them in clearing their dues, without first establishing the area under lease in the absence of a rent agreement. It is necessary to add that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution remains effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations."

Disposing of the writ, the Court directed:

"Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of their grievances."

Background

The dispute arose after the Bihar State AIDS Control Society (BSACS) issued a tender notice on April 1, 2022, to hire a godown. The petitioner's premises were selected, and physical possession was subsequently taken based on an acceptance letter dated July 28, 2022. The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that despite being in possession for nearly 19 months, the respondents failed to execute a formal rent agreement and defaulted on rent payments totaling Rs. 17,50,783.77.

Conversely, the state authorities submitted that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The respondents argued that the facts regarding the extent of the area actually handed over were disputed. They asserted that the petitioner failed to hand over the full agreed-upon space or install the required walk-in coolers, and refused to bear the registration cost of a five-year lease. The state further pointed out that the premises were completely vacated on August 29, 2024, and a sum of Rs. 14,67,722.33 had already been paid for the actual area occupied.

Accepting the objections of the respondents, the High Court declined to entertain the matter on merits and disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory forum.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6837 of 2024
Case Title: Draupti Devi @ Smt. Draupati Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Buddhi Lal Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate (for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7), Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, G.P. 16, Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to G.P. 16

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 2287