JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed as under : "...that this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to accept the writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; and i. directing the respondents to order de-hiring of the property in question known as Kishore Bagh Palace; ii. order the respondents to hand over the vacant possession of the in question forthwith; and to compensate the petitioner for the loss of rents and other things for the period till they were in possession; iii. any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; iv. costs of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. The petitioner holds a property known as 'Kishore Bagh' situated at Mandore Road. The aforesaid property comprises of many rooms of various dimensions and they can be termed as big halls. In the year 1966-67 the petitioner entered into an agreement for letting out this property with the Administrative Commandant and an agreement to this effect was executed on 1-5-1967. A copy of the lease deed has been placed on record as Annx. R. 1. The original lease commenced in August, 1966 and was extended from time to time and till 31st March, 1979. Thereafter, the petitioner did not extend the lease and insisted that the premises may be dehired and rent should be enhanced. When the petitioner failed to obtain any relief he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a latest decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another (1986) 3 SCC 156 , and subruitted that conditions Nos. 6. 9 and 18 of the lease deed Ex.l may be quashed as they are unconscionable and in view of the law laid down by their Lordships in Brojo Nath Ganguly's case (supra) even contracts of such unconscionable nature can be quashed being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. 6. 9 and 18 of the lease deed Ex.l may be quashed as they are unconscionable and in view of the law laid down by their Lordships in Brojo Nath Ganguly's case (supra) even contracts of such unconscionable nature can be quashed being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a plain and simple case of eviction of the tenant and as per the agreement the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the authorities for appointment of an arbitrator or for that matter the petitioner can file a civil suit under the Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents on the basis for reasonable and bonafide necessity. Thus, there is no occasion for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 4. I think that the submission of Mr. Vyas is well founded. Since the petitioner has let out the premises on rent and if he wants to evict the respondent then he has an adequate remedy of filing a civil suit for eviction under the Rent Control Act or in terms of the agreement he can refer the matter to arbitration. There is no ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to Brojo Naih Ganguly's case (supra) In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that any contract of unconscionable nature can be struck down. But the present case is between the landlord and the tenant for eviction and for which alternative remedy of a civil suit is available to the petitioner or if the petitioner chooses he can also refer the matter to arbitration as per agreement But the Brojo Ganguly's case is of no help to the petitioner, as tie present case is of simple eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute. 5. Thus, I do not find any substance in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. 6. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Dismissed. *******