Important Points
1. In the absence of constitutional or statutory rights being involved a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against the State or to avoid contractual liability arising thereto. In the absence of any statutory right Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise.
2. Delay in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, by itself may not defeat the claim for relief unless the position of the other party had been so altered which cannot be retracted on account of lapse of time or inaction of the party.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ petition-Writ proceedings would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against State or to avoid contractual liability arising thereto-In the absence of any statutory right Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise.
       Held : In the absence of constitutional or statutory rights being involved a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against the State or to avoid contractual liability arising thereto. In the absence of any statutory right Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise. In the present case, the appellants have sought to exercise their powers under Section 7 of the Act and, therefore, though the other consequences may be contractual in nature, the exercise of the right being under a statute, it cannot be said that the respondent could not approach, the writ court. (Para 6)
       Where interpretation of a contract arises in relation to immovable property and in working such contract or relief thereof or any other fall out thereto may have the effect of giving rise to an action in tort or for damages, the appropriate remedy would be a civil suit. But if the facts pleaded before the court are of such nature which do not involve any complicated questions of fact needing elaborate investigation of the same, the High Court could also exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. There can be no hard and fast rule in such matters. When the High Court has chosen to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution we cannot say that the discretion exercised in entertaining the petition is wrong. (Para 8)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ remedy-Delay, invoking Article 226, by itself may not defeat claim for relief unless position of otherside had been so altered which cannot be retracted on account of lapse of time or inaction of petitioner.
       Held : So far as the contention regarding laches of the respondent in filing the writ petition is concerned, delay, by itself, may not defeat the claim for relief unless the position of the appellant had been so altered which cannot be retracted on account of lapse of time or inaction of the other party. This aspect being independent upon the examination of the facts of the case and such contention not having been raised before the High Court, it would not be appropriate to allow the appellants to raise such contention for the first time before us. Besides, we may notice that the period for which the option of renewal has been exercised has not come to an end. During the subsistence of such period certainly the respondent could make a complaint that such exercise of option was not available to the appellants and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked even at a later stage. Further, the appellants are not put to undue hardship in any manner by reason of this delay in approaching the High Court for a relief. (Para 7)
       (iii) Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sections 107 and 108-Lease-Renewal of-Lease deed provided for renewal at the option of lessee and execution of fresh lease deed-Lessee merely writing letter expressing intention to extend term-Claim for renewal not followed up by a deed-Covenant for renewal not treated as part of terms prescribing period of lease but only entitled lessee to obtain fresh lease-On peculiar facts of case lease determined giving time to lessee to vacate premises. (Paras 9 to 11)

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-By a lease deed dated September 1, 1970 M/s. Kalinga Automobiles, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa, a partnership firm leased land comprised in Government of Orissa Drawing No. C-311, Flat No. B of Civil Centre, Unit I statute at Bapuji Nagar Kajpath, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa admeasuring 116 feet x 100 feet together with a service station standing thereon from October 1, 1968 for a period of 10 years renewable and determinable as provided in the lease deed. The Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refinining (India) Ltd. and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd.) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was enacted by Parliament and pursuant to which M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd. was taken over by the Government of India and was amalgamated with the petitioner-Corporation by an order made on May 9, 1978. Section 7(1) of the Act provided that the rights arising under leases obtained by Caltex (India) Ltd. would vest in the Central Government. Section 7(3) of the Act specifically provided that on the expiry of the term of any lease, if so desired by the Central Government, be renewed or continued, so far as may be, on the same terms and conditions on which the lease was originally granted or entered into. The Amalgamation Order provided in clause 5 thereof savings of contract etc. entered into by M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd. as they would be subsisting or having effect immediately before the appointed day be of as full force and effect in favour of the appellant and may be enforceable fully and effectually as if the appellant had been a party thereto or as if it had been executed in favour of the appellant.

2. By a letter dated May 23, 1979 the appellant exercised the option of renewal of the lease for a further term of 10 years from the expiration of the present tenure of the lease in question. Thereafter, on September 13, 1989, the appellant wrote to the respondent that in terms of Section 5 and Section 7(3) of the Act they exercised their right to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years commencing from October 1, 1989 on the same terms and conditions on which the lease dated September 1, 1970 held the lease immediately before 1977. On March 23, 1993 the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the said notice of renewal dated September 13, 1989.

Before the High Court the respondent contended as under :-

(i) that no deed has been executed renewing the lease on its expiry on September 30, 1979 and, therefore, the appellant could not exercise any further option of renewal and the notice of renewal, to which we have adverted to earlier, dated September 13, 1989 sent by the respondent is without jurisdiction and the appellant is a trespasser;

(ii) that even if the appellant had a statutory right of renewal the same could be availed of only once and there could be no further renewal subsequent to 1989;

(iii) that in terms of the enactment the right of renewal has to be exercised when desired by the Central Government and the Central Government having not desired in the present case it is not open to the appellant to exercise that right;

(iv) that in view of enormous escalation of prices of land in the city of Bhubaneshwar it is an arbitrary and inequitable act on the part of the appellant to occupy the premises at a meagre rent of Rs. 1900/- per month; and

(v) that the respondent’s offer to be appointed as an agent under the Corporation should have been acceded to and not to appoint illegally another agent.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended before the High Court that even in the absence of a deed the right of renewal could be exercised in accordance with the original terms contained in the lease deed and thus the appellant has a right to ask for a further renewal of 20 years and the notice of renewal cannot be stated to be illegal or arbitrary. The valid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document