Before Mr. Justice Debasish Kar Gupta ( 1 ) THIS writ application is filed by the petitioner praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to release the deed of lease dated August 4,1990 executed by the officer on special duty, Calcutta metropolitan Development Authority in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot No. 14 under CIT Scheme VIII-N measuring an area of about 162. 53 square metres (hereinafter referred to as the said plot of land) as also praying for a direction to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent No. 2 for payment of Rs. 31,743. 45/- as communicated to him as per letters dated may 3, 1989 and November 3, 1999. ( 2 ) THE petitioner submitted an application dated January 10,1996 in prescribed form to the respondent authority for granting a lease of in respect of the said plot of land in his favour at a total premium of Rs. 2,678,287. 00. An agreement for lease dated January 21, 1989 was entered into by and between the respondent authority and the petitioner to that effect on payment of Rs. 1,60,878. 00, i. e. sixty per cent of the total premium. The rest of the amount of Rs. 1,06,409. 00, i. e. forty per cent of the total premium, was decided to be paid in ten equal instalments. On the basis of further negotiations, the number of instalments for payment of due premium was reduced. On August 4, 1990 a deed of lease was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot of land. As per communication dated may 11,1998 the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to release the aforesaid deed of lease to him. In reply to the above communication the respondent no. 2, as per his communication dated November 3, 1998, informed him that the petitioner was required to pay the outstanding premium of Rs. 1,06,409. 00 together with interest in five equal annual instalments of Rs. 31,743. 45 each instead of four instalments as erroneously stated in the deed of lease executed in respect of said plot of land. So the petitioner was requested to execute a deed of rectification and to pay the fifth instalment. The petitioner refuted the claim of the respondent No. 2 to pay the fifth instalment as aforesaid. 31,743. 45 each instead of four instalments as erroneously stated in the deed of lease executed in respect of said plot of land. So the petitioner was requested to execute a deed of rectification and to pay the fifth instalment. The petitioner refuted the claim of the respondent No. 2 to pay the fifth instalment as aforesaid. After a series of correspondences the petitioner by his Advocate's letter dated August 19, 2000 demanded justice and claimed for return of the original deed of lease executed in respect of the said plot of land. In reply the respondent No. 2 as per communication dated April 12, 2001 informed the learned Advocate of the petitioner that the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 31,743. 45 towards the last instalment in order to get the deed of lease released. Hence, this writ application. ( 3 ) MR. R. Basu Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that there is no/ dispute with regard to the fact that the deed of lease dated August 4,1990 was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent authority in respect of the said plot of land. In terms of the above deed of lease the petitioner was required to pay the balance amount in four equal instalments. That outstanding amount has already been paid to the respondent authority. Now, they cannot claim further amount in connection therewith on any pretext. Mr. Basu Chowdhury further submits that the claim of the petitioner is barred by the provisions of Section 26 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Mr. Basu Chowdhury also submits that in accordance with provision of section 91 of the Evidence Act, the terms and conditions of the deed of lease is the proof of outstanding amount. That cannot be enhanced at the instance of the respondent authority. ( 4 ) MR. Basu Chowdhury further relies upon the decision of ABL international Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India and ors. , reported in 2004 (3) SCC 553 to submit that the dispute regarding the payment of fifth instalments towards outstanding amount in connection with the said plot of land can be determined in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) MR. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India and ors. , reported in 2004 (3) SCC 553 to submit that the dispute regarding the payment of fifth instalments towards outstanding amount in connection with the said plot of land can be determined in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) MR. P. S. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that this is an admitted fact that the sum of rs. 1,60,878. 00 had been paid by the petitioner before execution of the agreement for lease in respect of the said plot of land. The mode of payment of the outstanding amount was determined by way of verbal negotiations in between the petitioner and the respondent authority. On the basis of such negotiation, initially the petitioner was allowed to pay the outstanding amount in ten equal instalments. The agreement for lease was executed on January 21, 1989 on that basis. Subsequently, at the instance of the petitioner it was reduced to five equal instalments. But, inadvertently it was stated in the deed of lease dated August 4, 1990 that the outstanding amount would be paid in four equal instalments. Mr. Basu further relied upon the calculation shown in the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on August 4, 2003 (at sub-paragraph-lv of paragraph 4 at page 6) to show that unless the fifth instalment is paid by the petitioner, the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,06,409. 00 together with interest cannot be paid in full. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties and after considering the materials-on-record, I find that in order to direct the respondent authority to release the deed of lease dated august 4, 1990 executed in connection with the said plot of land; I have to arrive at a decision that the entire premium together with interest has already been paid by the petitioner to respondent authority. In doing so, I have to find out, on the basis of evidences, the quantum of outstanding amount which was required to be paid by the petitioner either in four instalments or in five instalments. Since, it is a disputed questions of fact and such evidences are not on record, in my view, such dispute cannot be decided in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since, it is a disputed questions of fact and such evidences are not on record, in my view, such dispute cannot be decided in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard the relevant portion from the decision of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals ltd. , reported in 2002 (1) SCC 216 (at page 218) are quoted below: - "7. In our view, it is apparent that the order passed by the High court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a Court exercising prerogative of issuing writs. " ( 7 ) I further find that in order to quash and set aside the communications dated May 3, 1989 and November 3, 1999 issued by the respondent No. 3 claiming payment of fifth instalments towards the outstanding premium for the said plot of land, a number of disputed questions of fact are to be gone into. ( 8 ) WITH regard to the decision of ABL International Ltd. and Anr. , (supra)relied upon by Mr. R. Basu Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the relevant portions of the above decision (at page 572) are quoted below: - "28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the Court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the Court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself. certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks ). And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the state or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction. " ( 9 ) IN the present case, as discussed above, a serious disputed questions of fact with regard to the mode and quantum of payment of lease premium by the petitioner is to be determined on the basis of the evidences which are not on records. Unless it is ascertained first no relief can be granted to the petitioner directing the respondents to hand over the lease deed to the petitioner. In the absence of such evidences the question of violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 14 by the respondent cannot be proved. I further find that in the above decision consideration of any oral evidence or any other documentary evidence, other than which was already on record, was not required to be considered. In that view of the matter, the above decision is not applicable in this case. ( 10 ) THE writ application is thus dismissed without entering into the merits of the case. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from initiating appropriate proceeding before any other appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised. ( 11 ) THERE will be, however, no order as to costs.