JUDGMENT : M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellant is the petitioner in O.P. 9483 of 1990. Under Ext. P-1 agreement appellant took on lease Room No. 3 of Gandhi Nagar Shopping Complex for conducting a Dental Clinic from the Greater Cochin Development Authority (1st respondent). The lease was for a period of 99 years. As per Ext. P-1 dated 16th October 1979 the appellant paid premium of Rs. 12,938.85, the annual contract rent being Rs. 4,312.95. 2. Contention of the appellant is that without prior notice to her and contrary to the terms of Ext. P-1 agreement the first respondent unilaterally increased the annual rent by refixing the same at Rs. 8,626 retrospectively with effect from 16th October 1989 and that on her representation it was reduced from Rs. 300 per square metre to Rs. 250 per square metre. The reduction of the rent is evidenced by Ext. P-6. 3. Learned Single Judge relying on Clause.15 of the agreement held that the appellant having agreed to all the conditions as per the agreement cannot challenge the increase in the rent. Clause.15 of the agreement reads as follows: “To abide by all the terms and conditions of the scheme and the decisions taken by the lessor or the Board of Greater Cochin Development Authority about the tenancy.” Though the original rent fixed as per the agreement was enhanced by the first respondent it cannot be said that the appellant can successfully challenge it in view of Clause-15. 4. First respondent in the counter affidavit has explained the reason for enhancement of the rent. In Para.5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Executive Committee of the first respondent took the decision to enhance the rent after taking into account the importance of the locality and the prevailing rent in the locality and subsequently on the representation by the appellant it was reduced from Rs. 300 per square metre to Rs. 250 per square metre and therefore the appellant cannot have any grievance at all in the matter. There is considerable force in the contention of the first respondent that in view of Clause-15 of the agreement appellant cannot make any challenge on the enhanced rate of rent. 5. Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the original petition itself is not maintainable as the reliefs sought for in the original petition is based on a contract between the parties. 5. Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the original petition itself is not maintainable as the reliefs sought for in the original petition is based on a contract between the parties. Counsel pointed out that if the appellant is in any way aggrieved by the action of the first respondent the only course open to her is to have approached the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs as the relationship between her and the first respondent being purely contractual in nature. There is considerable force in the above contention. 6. In Bareilly Development Authority vs. Ajay Pai Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076 the Supreme Court held that if the contract entered into by the State is non statutory and purely contractual the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se and in this sphere the parties can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority in the said contractual field. It is also settled that no writ or order can be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. 7. As the relationship between the appellant and the first respondent arises within the realm of a concluded contract pure and simple as evidenced by Ext. P-1 any breach of it can be challenged by the aggrieved party only before the proper Civil Court. The approach to this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is highly ill conceived. This Court while entertaining the petition under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot obviously deal with the dispute and factual contentions between the parties. Whether the first respondent was justified or not in enhancing the annual rent can be decided only by a fact finding authority. The agreement in question does not contain any statutory terms or conditions. If the agreement contains any statutory conditions or obligations and if there was any violation of the same it would have been possible for this Court to interfere in a writ petition under Art.226. Obviously that is not the case here. The agreement in question does not contain any statutory terms or conditions. If the agreement contains any statutory conditions or obligations and if there was any violation of the same it would have been possible for this Court to interfere in a writ petition under Art.226. Obviously that is not the case here. It is not possible for us to hold that when the first respondent has enhanced the annual rent of the premises in the possession of the appellant it offended any statutory provisions at all. 8. As the parties are bound by Ext. P-1 agreement and as the enhancement of the annual rent was effected pursuant to a specific clause in the agreement and as it cannot be sail that any statutory provisions have been violated by the first respondent in doing so it has to be held that the appellant cannot challenge the enhancement of rent per suing the remedy under Art.226 of the, Constitution of India. As the contract entered into by them is non statutory and purely contractual, one of the parties cannot side-track the contract governing them and approach this Court under Art.226. The course open to the appellant is to have approached the Civil Court for appropriate relief. 9. It is open to the appellant to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs, if so advised. In case she approaches the Civil Court it shall decide the matter untrammelled by the observations in this judgment and the judgment under appeal. 10. The appeal is devoid of merit. Writ Appeal is dismissed.