JUDGMENT This writ application is directed against a notice dated 30.10.96 as contained in Annexure 'F' to the writ application whereby and whereunder the respondent No.3 refused to extend the period of licence lease. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, although contentions have been raised at the Bar, does not consider it necessary, to decide as to whether the Agreement is governed under the provision of the West Bengal Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 or not. 2. However there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner cannot be evicted forcibly. 3. This aspect of the matter is governed by a decision of this Court in the case of (1) Sukumar Banerjee v. Chairman, C.I.T. reported in 82 CWN 392 as also by the Supreme Court of India in. the case reported in (2) AIR 1989 SC 993. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of (3) Parvatibai Subhanrao Nalawade v. Anwarali Hasanali Makani reported in AIR 1992 SC 1780 . In that case the Supreme Court was considering a civil dispute between the parties arising out of a consent decree. In that case the tenant vacated the premises on express stipulation of the landlord that on construction of a new building the tenant would get identical area therein. The Apex Court observed that the landlord should honour the pledge given in the form of an undertaking. As there was a dispute as regard identification of a particular area in the building, the Apex Court remitted the matter back to the executing Court. The Apex Court however observed:- "Before closing this judgment we would like to emphasise that in cases relating to immovable properties which are governed by the ordinary civil Jaw the High Court should not exercise its special jurisdiction under the Constitution unless the circumstances are exceptional. This aspect has been discussed by this Court earlier on several occasions." 5. It is now well-settled that as regards the private dispute' this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution nor this Court can allow the prayer of the petitioner made in the writ application, namely, directing the respondents to withdraw the notice and renew the lease. It is now well-settled that as regards the private dispute' this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution nor this Court can allow the prayer of the petitioner made in the writ application, namely, directing the respondents to withdraw the notice and renew the lease. The question which arises for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the respondent No.1 being a State within the meaning of Article I of the Constitution of India is entitled to use force for the purpose of taking possession of the premises in question. This aspect of the matter bas been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of (4) Bishnu Das v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1961 SC 1570 and (5) Lallu Yeshwant v. Rao Jagadish reported in AIR 1986 SC 620 wherein the Supreme Court had quoted with approval the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of (6) Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narin reported in AIR 1924 Privy Council 144. 6. In this view of the matter, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent" cannot be said to have any application in the facts of the present case. 7. In this view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner cannot be evicted forcibly where for a proceeding in accordance with law may be initiated. This writ application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations.