The High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the adjudication of purely civil disputes arising from private lease agreements between a municipal corporation and its tenants.

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2026 K. Natarajan, J.

This writ appeal is filed by the appellant for challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.03.2026 in WP(C) No. 13032/2026.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is said to be a lessee under the respondent municipal corporation running a shop from the year 2001 on wards. As per the terms of the lease agreement the term expires only on 31.03.2026 and the appellant is having right to move application for the renewal of the agreement within the three months of the expiry of the term. The learned counsel submitted that such an application was filed, but the corporation not have passed any order under the council. However, the respondent corporation abruptly issued notice Ext. P14 on 27.03.2026 by directing the appellant to vacate the premises within 3 days. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel contented that, even though the learned Single Judge granted 4 months time to vacate, the error was committed in not giving an opportunity or right to appear before the competent authority to contest the matter. But he was directed to surrender the premises within four months which is not correct. The counsel submitted even though the application filed by the petitioner is lying pending with the respondent, no renewal has been granted. Such being the case, forcing such order for eviction is illegal. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same and to permit the petitioner to go before the Corporation Authority for the purpose of renewal. The learned counsel also contented that the Ext. P14 notice was issued by the incompetent person, who is the superintendent but not the Secretary of the Corporation. Such being the case, the issuing notice itself is illegal therefore prayed to direct it to be quashed. Hence prayed for allowing the appeal.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has objected the claim mainly on ground that the appellant has not produced any document before the learned Single Judge for filing application for renewal of the lease agreement, prior to three months before the expiry date of the term. Even the documents are not produced. There is no direction sought for considering the renewal application. The premises is required for the Corporation for the purpose of starting medical supplies. The Corporation issued notice to all the tenants. He has further contented that the very writ petition is not maintainable as the contract between the appellant and respondent was based upon the lease agreement. Therefore, the matter rightly lies before the Civil Court and not before the High Court, and the notice was issued three days prior to the date of expiration. Therefore the question of renewing the agreement as per the terms does not arise. Hence the learned counsel prayed for dismissing the appeal.

5. Upon hearing the arguments and having perused the records, it is not in dispute that the appellant was running the shop from 2001 onwards under the lease agreement and it was renewed from time to time. As per the last clause in the agreement, the renewal application is required to be filed three months prior to the expiry of the lease period and if any such application is filed, then the lesser shall extend the lease to the time fixed by the council. Of course, the appellant failed to produce copy of any such renewal application to show that the same was filed three months prior to the expiry of the lease agreement as per the last clause of the lease agreement. Even then