Honble SHARMA, J.–The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the order dated April 29, 2000 (Annexure- 8) issued by the respondent University of Rajasthan, whereby the rent of the tenanted shops was increased without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner has been the tenant of the respondent University in the shops in question and it appears that the Syndicate vide Resolution dated April 22, 2000 decided to increase the rent of the shops.

(2). The learned counsel Mr. R.D. Rastogi, appearing on behalf of the respondent University raised preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in contractual matters powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not be invoked. The learned counsel placed reliance on Kerala State Electricity Board and another vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others (1). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court Court in the said case indicated that ``the contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petitioner under A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document