ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J. 1. The petitioner has sough following reliefs: 1. Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay rent of the premises @ Rs.45,750/-per month and pay all arrears of rent from the date of occupation, namely 1.3.2004 upto date. 2. Writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to execute lease deed from the date of occupation for 5 years. 3. Mandamus commanding the respondent to vacate the premises after completion of 5 years namely 1.3.2007. 4. Mandamus commanding the respondent to pay interest on the arrears of rent at such rate as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 2. (a) Case of the petitioner is that the respondent issued an advertisement for procuring premises for the office and hospital run by the Central Government. Petitioner in response to the advertisement offered his premises on commercial basis at the rate of Rs.50,000/-per month. The respondent intended to take full ground floor, first floor and part of the second floor of the premises and requested the petitioner to carry out certain additions and alterations. The petitioner agreed to do so and also agreed to accept the rent as per the Fair Rent Certificate to be issued by the Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred as C.P.W.D. in short) on commercial basis for commercial purposes. A copy of the letter sent by the petitioner to the respondent in response to advertisement and negotiations is on record as Annexure P-2. Alongwith Annexure P-2 the petitioner submitted particulars of the building proposed to be let out for fixing of fair rent by the C.P.W.D. (b) The C.P.W.D. sent a letter Annexure P-3 dated 14.8.2001 by which the department assessed the rent of the building at Rs.32,367/ on the basis of prevailing market rate in the locality as a reasonable rent. As per the letter Annexure P-3 this assessment was for a period of 5 years and inclusive of municipal taxes, maintenance and repair charges to be borne by the landlord. Respondent on receipt of the letter Annexure P-3 sent a copy to the petitioner informing the rent payable at the rate of Rs.32,080/- per month alongwith letter Annexure P-4. (c) The petitioner's case is that relying on the rent assessment certificate of C.P.W.D., petitioner sent a consent letter Annexure P-5 on 24.8.2001 accepting the rate fixed by C.P.W.D. by Annexure P-3. (c) The petitioner's case is that relying on the rent assessment certificate of C.P.W.D., petitioner sent a consent letter Annexure P-5 on 24.8.2001 accepting the rate fixed by C.P.W.D. by Annexure P-3. Then the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent on 31.1.2002 intimating that the proposed alteration had been carried out and the building was ready for occupation. (d) That by letter Annexure P-7 dated 18.3.2002, the respondent acknowledged of taking over possession of the building on 1.3.2002 alongwith the fittings and fixtures. (e) The petitioner sent a letter Annexure P-8 dated 8.4.2002 to the respondent that the occupation by the respondent was in excess to the previous conditions of occupation that the full ground floor, first floor and part of the second floor will be occupied, while entire second floor was occupied with some addition. The petitioner requested the respondent for refixation of the rent. The respondent on 29.4.2002 sent a letter to the Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D. for re-fixation of the rent as a portion of the house was leftout from the assessment. (f) The petitioner sent a letter Annexure P-10 on 4.12.2002 for expediting the matter for re-fixation of the rent. Reminders were sent by the petitioner as per Annexure P-11, P-12 and P-13. The Executive Engineer, C.PW.D. by letter Annexure P-14 intimated the measurements of the building occupied by the respondent. The respondent again sent a letter Annexure P-5 dated 24.12.2003 to the Director of respondent for re-fixation of the rent. (g) The Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D. by letter Annexure P-16 dated 16.12.2004 intimated the respondent that the previous assessment was wrongly made and in fact locality of the building is of commercial and fair rent was assessed to Rs. 45,750/-. In the aforesaid letter it was also intimated that in previous assessment one room was not included, of which fair rent was assessed at Rs. 2124/- per month and the commercial fair rent of the aforesaid room was assessed to Rs.2841/-per month. On getting this letter Annexure P-16, the petitioner insisted for the payment of rent of the accommodation from 1.3.2002 on the basis of the rent assessed by annexure P-16 and claimed difference and balance of rent as per Annexure P-16. 2124/- per month and the commercial fair rent of the aforesaid room was assessed to Rs.2841/-per month. On getting this letter Annexure P-16, the petitioner insisted for the payment of rent of the accommodation from 1.3.2002 on the basis of the rent assessed by annexure P-16 and claimed difference and balance of rent as per Annexure P-16. The respondent on getting the letters of the petitioner and notice Annexure P-18 intimated the petitioner that the rent assessed by the Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D, cannot be treated as actual rent till it is accepted by the respondent and the petitioner was asked to raise monthly bills on the basis of sanctioned and agreed rent at the rate of Rs.32080/- p.m. (h) This subsequent fixation of rent by the C.P.W.D. as per Annexure P-16 and non-payment of the rent as per Annexure P-16 has caused dispute between the parties. The contentions of the petitioner are: (i) that initially rent was wrongly fixed by the C.P.W.D. treating the accommodation as non-commercial accommodation while it was a commercial accommodation located in the commercial area and the executive engineer has rightly accepted the mistake and has fixed the fair rent as per Annexure P-16 for which the petitioner is entitled. (ii) That the respondent entered into the premises forcibly without fixing the rent and executing an agreement as envisaged under Article 299 of the Constitution of India and has committed fraud on the petitioner. (iii) That in the contract the respondent is expected to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law laiddown by the Apex Court in Shreelekha vidhyarthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR1991SC537 . It is prayed that on the basis of the aforesaid facts, petition be allowed and reliefs as indicated hereinabove be granted. 3. (a) The respondent has filed reply in which respondent has raised preliminary submissions that the building house No. 236 of Napier Town was taken on rent for the office and dispensary purposes w.e.f. 1.3.2002. Before taking the possession of the building it was clearly informed to the petitioner by the respondent by letter dated 23.8.01 Annexure P-4 that the rent of the proposed building has been fixed at Rs. 32080/-by the competent authority and the liability of municipal tax, maintenance and repairing charges will be of the petitioner. The aforesaid rent was effective for the period of 5 years and was to remain unchanged during this period. 32080/-by the competent authority and the liability of municipal tax, maintenance and repairing charges will be of the petitioner. The aforesaid rent was effective for the period of 5 years and was to remain unchanged during this period. The petitioner was specifically asked, if after all the proposed additions alterations and repairing the proposed rent is acceptable to the petitioner then a written consent may be sent. The petitioner in response to Annexure P-4, by letter dated 24.8.2001 Annexure P-5 intimated that the rent Rs.32080/-is acceptable to him. On 31.1.2002 by Annexure P-6 the petitioner intimated the respondent that the proposed additions alterations were carried out and the building was ready for handing over. Respondent took possession of the building on 1.3.2002 and the date of occupying the building was intimated to the petitioner by letter dated 18.3.2002 Annexure P-7. Alongwith the same letter the petitioner was sent a Lease agreement for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 1.3.2002 with a request to execute the Lease Agreement on requisite non-judicial stamp paper. (b) Thereafter by letter dated 29.11.2002, 18.7.2003, 20.12.2005 and 14.3.2006 the petitioner was reminded for the execution and submission of the Lease Deed but he had not submitted the Lease deed. The petitioner was requesting for revision of rent, hence the request of the petitioner to revise the rent w.e.f. 1.3.2002 was forwarded to the Headquarter of the respondent which was turned down by the Internal Finance Division of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare because the building was hired for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 1.3.2002. the date of possession of the building, at the rate of Rs.32080/-p.m. It was accepted in categorical terms by the petitioner, hence the revision of rent was permissible only after 1.3.2007. The decision of the Ministry was conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 2.6.2006 Annexure P-22. (c) That initially a portion of second floor was intended to be taken on lease but subsequently the entire second floor was intended to be taken for which the C.P.W.D. was requested to assess the rent for this additional portion. But the Headquarter of the respondent had not agreed to occupy this additional portion, hence the possession of this portion was returned back to the petitioner. But the Headquarter of the respondent had not agreed to occupy this additional portion, hence the possession of this portion was returned back to the petitioner. Later on as per the directions of the Headquarter of the respondent the rent was assessed by the CPWD for this portion at the rate of Rs.2841/-per month and has been offered to the petitioner for future. In this regard response from the petitioner has been not received. (d) That the Lease Deed was sent to the petitioner for execution by the respondent by letter dated 18.3.2002 with four reminders. The petitioner had not executed the Deed and forwarded to the respondent. The rent of building was finalized well before taking the possession of the building and the rent was fully accepted and agreed by the petitioner also for a period of 5 years by letter dated 24.8.2001 Annexure P-5. (e) That the building was occupied after accepting the rent by the petitioner as assessed by C.P.W.D. by Annexure P-3 and with the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner had not executed the Lease deed for which petitioner cannot blame the respondent. (f) It is submitted that as per para 5.1 of the petition, the landlords are Smt. Kamla Devi, Shri Nitish Kumar, Smt. Mamta and Smt. Vidya Choudaha and the house was offered on their behalf by the petitioner as a Power of Attorney Holder, so the present petition filed by the Power of Attorney holder in his own name without impleading the landlords as party is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 4. During the course of arguments, Shri Dharmendra Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General or India, submitted that this petition involves disputed question of facts and has been filed for the enforcement of contractual obligations by the Power of Attorney in his own name is not maintainable and may be dismissed. 5. Shri Sanghi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner opposed the contention and submitted that the Power of Attorney is entitled to file this petition on the basis of the authority given to him and is maintainable. Reliance is placed to full Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court in Jiwi Bai v. Ramkumar reported in 1947 Nagpur Law Journal page 1. It is submitted by Shri Sanghi that for a contractual obligations writ petition can be entertained. Reliance is placed to full Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court in Jiwi Bai v. Ramkumar reported in 1947 Nagpur Law Journal page 1. It is submitted by Shri Sanghi that for a contractual obligations writ petition can be entertained. Reliance is placed to the Apex Court judgment Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1980 SC 1992, Dwarkadas Marfatia & sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay 1989 SC 1642, Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation 1990 SC 1031, Shrilekha Vidhyarthi v. State of U.P. 1991 SC 537 and L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre AIR1995SC1811 . 6. On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the following factual position emerges: a. That the petitioner offered an accommodation to the respondent in view of advertisement issued by the respondent for providing an accommodation for the aforesaid office. b. That after negotiations the petitioner's building was finalized and as agreed, the petitioner was to carry out certain additions alterations and thereafter the petitioner was entitled for rent as may be fixed by the CPWD. c. That the CPWD by letter dated 14.8.2001 Annexure P-3 fixed the rent of the accommodation for Rs.32367/-inclusive of municipal tax and maintenance to be borne by the landlord. And respondent by letter dated 23.8.2001 Annexure P/4 offered rent at the rate of Rs. 32080/- per month. d. That the petitioner by letter Annexure P-5 dated 24.8.2007 had accepted the aforesaid rent @ Rs. 32080/-after additions and alterations proposed and intimated respondent without any conditions or qualifying clause. e. The building was occupied by respondents on 1.3.2002 and thereafter by Annexure P-8 dated 8.4.2002 the petitioner insisted for re- fixation of rent on the ground that some additional construction was made, fixtures and fittings were affixed and a portion of the second floor was left from the assessment of the fair rent. On getting this letter, respondent by letter Annexure P-10 dated 4.12.2002 referred the matter to C.P.W.D. 7. The aforesaid facts specifically show that till 1.3.2002, the date of occupation of the building, there was no dispute between the parties in respect of rate of rent and the rent fixed by C.P.W.D. by Annexure P-3 was accepted by the petitioner in unequivocal terms. The aforesaid facts specifically show that till 1.3.2002, the date of occupation of the building, there was no dispute between the parties in respect of rate of rent and the rent fixed by C.P.W.D. by Annexure P-3 was accepted by the petitioner in unequivocal terms. While determining the rent, the CPWD in the letter Annexure P-3 has specifically stated that the building is situated at main road near Shashtri Bridge crossing, Napier Town belonging to Smt. Kamla Chodaha, for determining the rent principles laiddown in the Directorate General of Works, C.P.W.D were followed and the rent was assessed on the basis of prevailing market rent in the locality. 8. A copy of the certificate Annexure P-3 was sent to the petitioner alongwith the letter Annexure P-4 and the petitioner was very specifically asked by letter Annexure P-4 that if he was agreeing to the aforesaid rent and terms, the petitioner may submit his consent to the respondent so that the matter may be processed further. In the same letter it was intimated that the entire electricity, water and sanitary fittings were to be renewed. The petitioner in the letter Annexure P-5 had not denied any of the condition and in unequivocal terms accepted the letter Annexure P-4. The petitioner if was not satisfied with the assessment of the rent fixed by Annexure P-3 and communicated by Annexure P-4, the petitioner ought to have objected immediately before accepting the aforesaid terms by Annexure P-5. Apart from this, letter Annexure P-2 was sent by the petitioner for fixation of the fair rent of the building and alongwith this letter, petitioner sent a form in proforma- namely 'furnishing necessary information for fixation of fair rent by CPWD'. The location of the building was shown in the form and on the basis of this, while determining the rent by Annexure P-3 the C.P.W.D.had looked into the locality of the building and prevailing market rent in the locality and thereafter issued the certificate Annexure P-3. The location of the building was shown in the form and on the basis of this, while determining the rent by Annexure P-3 the C.P.W.D.had looked into the locality of the building and prevailing market rent in the locality and thereafter issued the certificate Annexure P-3. So at the time of assessment of the fair rent by Annexure P-3, the entire circumstances were taken into consideration and the aforesaid rent was applicable for a period of 5 years and during this period the petitioner was not entitled to get re-fix the rent of the building even on the ground that previously the rent was wrongly fixed as a noncommercial building and the petitioner was entitled for a rent of commercial building. That too after accepting the rent and terms by letter Annexure P/5. 9. Though, it appears that one extra room of second floor was intended to be occupied by the respondent as it was suitable to necessity and for this purpose, the respondent sought fixation of the rent but it does not mean that the petitioner was entitled for re-fixation of the rent of the entire accommodation and was entitled for enhanced rent as per annexure P-16. The aforesaid exercise was not at all warranted in view of unequivocal terms settled between the parties as appears from Annexure P-4 and 5. Apart from this as admitted during the course of hearing up to February,2007, petitioner accepted the rent of the accommodation at the rate which was fixed by Annexure P-3. The aforesaid rent was applicable up to February,07 as agreed between the parties. 10. In this case the dispute is in regard to the rate of rent and the petitioner is claiming higher rent of the accommodate, while the respondent were paying the rent as per Annexure P-3 which was accepted by petitioner vide Annexure P-5 and this dispute between the parties in respect of the rate of rent, cannot be agitated and decided in the writ jurisdiction. 11. So far as one additional room at second floor of the house is concerned, it appears that initially the aforesaid room was occupied, but when the proposal was turned down by the Headquarter of the respondent, the aforesaid room was returned back to the petitioner. This fact is also in dispute. 11. So far as one additional room at second floor of the house is concerned, it appears that initially the aforesaid room was occupied, but when the proposal was turned down by the Headquarter of the respondent, the aforesaid room was returned back to the petitioner. This fact is also in dispute. The petitioner's contention is that the aforesaid room is still with the respondent while in the return the respondent has specifically stated that the aforesaid room was returned back to the petitioner immediately after getting communication from the headquarter for not accepting this additional commendation. Anyhow the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder or counter affidavit in this regard. For recovery of the rent and deciding the aforesaid questions, whether this writ petition can be entertained is a question is to be decided by this Court. 12. It is a settled law that for deciding dispute in respect of contractual matters, writ court is not a proper forum and the aforesaid disputes ought to have been settled in a civil Court. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on various judgment of Apex Court but the aforesaid judgment relates to statutory contracts or non-performance of statutory obligations of the authorities. But in respect of bare contractual obligations, when the remedy of civil suit is available, ordinary writ petition is not to be entertained, particularly when a serious dispute has been raised which deserves adjudication of the facts. In this case the petitioner is claiming higher rent as per Annexure P-16 while agreed rent between the parties as per Annexure P-3,4 and 5 is Rs.32080/-. The occupation of one additional room at second floor is also in dispute. Apart from this the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is applicable in respect of the accommodation situated within the municipal area. For determination of aforesaid questions, the aforesaid Act provides a remedy before a civil Court. The petitioner can very well claim rent or eviction of the respondent on the basis of the provisions of the Act. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that the respondents or its officials had not complied with the terms of contract ( which has not been come in existence till date) the appropriate remedy is not by way of filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but ordinary civil suit is the proper remedy. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that the respondents or its officials had not complied with the terms of contract ( which has not been come in existence till date) the appropriate remedy is not by way of filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but ordinary civil suit is the proper remedy. The dispute in respect of the rate of rent or its payment cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy under M.P. Accommodation Act, 1961 to file a suit in this regard and the civil Court is having jurisdiction to determine all the aforesaid questions. 13. Another question which has been raised by the petitioner is that without execution of an agreement under Article 229 of the Constitution, the respondent ought not to have occupied the accommodation and infact they forcibly took the possession of the accommodation. The aforesaid contention also cannot be accepted on the perusal of the facts that the petitioner accepted the rent by Annexure P-5 and handed over the accommodation willfully to the respondent which can very well be gathered from the perusal of Annexure P-8, in which the petitioner had welcome the transfer of the office of respondent in the accommodation of petitioner. Merely there was some dispute in respect of rate of rent or the occupation of the additional accommodation will not make the occupation of the respondent unauthorized or forcible. So far as execution of the lease deed is concerned, from the perusal the documents it is apparent that the petitioner was at fault. The lease deed was sent to the petitioner alongwith the letter Annexure P-7 long back on 18.3.2002 and the petitioner never returned it back after execution or controverted this fact. The case of the respondent is that for the execution of the lease Deed the petitioner was sent reminders on 29.11.2002, 18.7.2003, 20.12.2005 and 19.3.2006, but the lease Deed was not executed by the petitioner, hence this fact also goes against the petitioner. 14. Now the last objection raised by the respondent may be seen, that this petition has been filed by the petitioner in his own name without impleading principals as petitioner or filing an authority showing that principals authorised petitioner to initiate legal proceedings in his own name. 14. Now the last objection raised by the respondent may be seen, that this petition has been filed by the petitioner in his own name without impleading principals as petitioner or filing an authority showing that principals authorised petitioner to initiate legal proceedings in his own name. Section 188 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 specifically provide that an agent having an authority to do an act has authority to do every lawful things which is necessary in order to do such act. But in the absence of any specific authority in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner shall be entitled to file petition or legal proceedings in his own name, the petitioner was not entitled to file this petition. Though on the strength of power of attorney, petitioner may be entitled to file a petition but in the name of principal showing the petitioner as the Agent of the principal. Power of attorney must specifically vest such a power in his favour. Though during the course of hearing the petitioner has shown the power of attorney dated 22.5.2001 but from the perusal of the aforesaid, there is no specific or implied authority to the petitioner to file proceedings before the court of law in his own name. 15. As this Court has found that this petition involved disputed question of facts and alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file suit before the Court of law, hence this petition is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy permissible under the law. 16. Considering the facts of the case, petitioner shall bear the cost of respondent. Counsel fee Rs.2000/-.