Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 814 (GAU)

Brahmaputra Business Pvt. Ltd. v. Oil India Ltd.

2015-06-26

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. While the petitioner No. 1 is a registered company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at LKRB Path, RG Baruah Road, Guwahati, the petitioner No. 2 is its Director. They are aggrieved by Annexure-3 letter dated 5.2.2015 of the respondent Oil India Limited (OIL). For a ready reference, the impugned letter is reproduced below: "Oil India Limited Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies, Guwahati Ref: OIL/COE/01/04-2/1333/2015 Date: 05.02.2015 M/s. Brahmaputra Business Pvt. Ltd. 'INTEGRA' Rukminigaon G.S. Road, Guwahati 781022 Sub: Lease accommodation for Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies Dear Sir, This has reference to the lease agreement dated 15.11.2010 between Oil India Limited i.e. OIL and Brahmaputra Business private limited, i.e. M/s. BBPL for housing the office of Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies. Also refer to the NTT of OIL dated 01.02.2010, your offer dated 20.02.2010 and various correspondences till the letter of acceptance issued on 05.07.2010. 1. That by your offer letter dated 20.02.2010, you have mentioned that the entire flooring of the building will be constructed as per requirement of OIL. Subsequently, as per your letter dated 15.06.2010, you have assured that you will complete the flooring of the entire building with Ivory colored ceramic/vitrified tiles. But with regret we have to mention that approximately only 4707.33 sq. ft. in ground floor and a portion of third floor has been fitted with vitrified tiles. Finding no other alternative, OIL had to fit about 8968 sq. ft. with vinyl flooring. You will understand that it was agreed for a uniform rat of Rs. 45/- per sq. ft. for rent of the entire building anticipating uniformity in the entire flooring method. The cost of fixing ceramic/vitrified tiles would have been Rs. 10,96,123.00. Since OIL had to carry out flooring job spending a huge amount due to your failure to fix ceramic/vitrified tiles on the entire floor area, the said amount is refundable by you to OIL. Accordingly you are hereby advised to refund the amount of Rs. 10,96,123.00 as OIL had to incur huge expenditure for covering the area of 8968 sq. ft. with Vinyl flooring. 2. That as per requirement and as per our letter dated 15.6.2010 you were supposed to provide the electrical wiring works for necessary minimum illumination of the building and provision of ACs. 10,96,123.00 as OIL had to incur huge expenditure for covering the area of 8968 sq. ft. with Vinyl flooring. 2. That as per requirement and as per our letter dated 15.6.2010 you were supposed to provide the electrical wiring works for necessary minimum illumination of the building and provision of ACs. But even after execution of lease deed same was not done. Finding no other alternative OIL had to do necessary wiring etc. by spending a huge amount of Rs. 14,65,000.00. These expenses were supposed to be borne by the lessor and as such you are advised to refund the amount of Rs. 14,65,000.00 immediately. 3. That by lease agreement dated 15.11.2010, you agreed to rent out the entire building charging rent for an area of 17183 sq. ft. @ Rs. 45/- per sq. ft. However, out Civil Engineering Department has measured the building and found the floor area of the building is only 16470.79 sq. ft. Thus, you have been receiving excess rent for an area of 712 sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 32,040.00 per month till January 2015. Till January, 2010, you have been paid an excess rent amount of Rs. 17,62,200.00 by OIL. Accordingly, you are hereby advised to refund the excess amount of Rs. 17,62,200.00 which was paid to you due to wrong measurement of the building provided by you. Also note that henceforth you will be entitled for rent for an area of 16470.79 sq. ft. at the agreed rate of rent. 4. That while query was mad about the height of the building by our letter dated 29.4.2010, you have mentioned that the height of the building is 15.62 mtr. And hence NOC from State Fire Service is not required. However, out Civil Engineering Department has found that the actual height of the building is 17.62 mtr. Making it mandatory for the building to obtain NOC from Fire Service Authority. Thus, you have mislead us and you executed the lease deed by suppressing material facts. Hence you are requested to provide us copy/copies of authentic document(s) from appropriate authority certifying the height of the building. In view of the aforesaid, you are requested to compensate the loss to OIL arising out of the irregularities mentioned here above. It may also be noted that the monthly rent payable will be reduced by Rs. 32040 w.e.f. February, 2015. In view of the aforesaid, you are requested to compensate the loss to OIL arising out of the irregularities mentioned here above. It may also be noted that the monthly rent payable will be reduced by Rs. 32040 w.e.f. February, 2015. Further rent payable by OIL is being kept in abeyance w.e.f. February, 2015 till the matter is resolved. Yours faithfully Oil India Ltd." Immediately after the above quoted impugned letter dated 5.2.2015, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petition on 16.2.2015. While entertaining the writ petition by way of issuance of notice vide order dated 20.2.2015, an interim order was passed suspending the impugned letter. The basic facts material for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition are as follows. 2. As stated in the writ petition, the respondent OIL issued a tender bearing No. DCC6754P10 dated 1.2.2010 seeking bid for leasing out a building in GS Road, Guwahati to house the proposed Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies. The requirements was specified as follows: "Building seismically designed, preferably newly constructed, with carpet area of approximately 1500 SqM to house the proposed Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies, on lease for a period of (05) years with provision of extension, located preferably on G.S. Road, Guwahati with HVAC systems, Lift(s), 100 percent power back up, provision for parking of @ 15 vehicles, fire fighting facilities and 24 hours running water. The total carpet area may be divided into 3-4 floors of individual carpet area @ 350-400 SqM." 3. The petitioners submitted bid for leasing out built up area of its newly constructed commercial building "Integra" located at GS. Road, Guwahati. According to the petitioners, the rent/rate quoted by it for leasing out the building was exclusive of the expenses of providing Generator and Air Conditioner. However, considering the demand of the respondents, the petitioners vide its Annexure-B letter dated 1.6.2010 agreed to provide 100% power supply by installing a Generator and Air Conditioners including maintenance, free of cost and requested the OIL authority not to negotiate any further in respect of the rent quoted. 4. By Annexure-D letter dated 15.6.2010, the respondent OIL offer the petitioners, the letter of acceptance, subject, however to the fulfillment of the obligation as per tender and subsequent correspondences. For a ready reference, the said letter of acceptance dated 15.6.2010 is also reproduced. 4. By Annexure-D letter dated 15.6.2010, the respondent OIL offer the petitioners, the letter of acceptance, subject, however to the fulfillment of the obligation as per tender and subsequent correspondences. For a ready reference, the said letter of acceptance dated 15.6.2010 is also reproduced. "Oil India Limited Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies, Guwahati Ref: CONT/CIV/134/2010 Date: 15.06.2015 To M/s. Brahmaputra Business Pvt. Ltd. LK RB Path, R.G. Baruah Road Opp, AIDC, 2nd Bye Lane Guwahati Assam-781024 Sub: Tender No. DCC6754P10 Building seismically designed preferably newly constructed, with carpet area of approximately 1500 SqM to house the proposed Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies, on lease for a period of Five (05) years with provision of extension, location preferably on G.S. Road, Guwahati with HVAC systems, Lift(s) 100 percent power back up, provision for parking of @ 15 vehicles, fire fighting facilities and 24 hours running water. The total carpet area may be divided into 3-4 floors of individual carpet area @ 350-400 SqM. Ref: Your offer dated 20th February, 2010 Letter of Acceptance Dear Sir(s) 1.0. We write with reference to your offer dated 20th February 2010 on the aforesaid subject matter and take pleasure in informing you that we agree to take on lease the premises offered by you, on GS Road, Guwahati. This is however, subject to fulfillment of your obligations as per the Tender and subsequent correspondence ending with your letter No. OIL/DCC6754P10/03/2010-11 dated 01.06.2010 and not limited to the following. a. The lift, as specified in your offer, is to be installed prior to commencement of lease b. Installation of 24 X 7 water supply facilities prior to commencement of lease. c. 100 percent power backup, of minimum capacity 250 KVA., prior to commencement of lease. d. Air conditioning as per heat load requirement is to be installed prior to commencement of lease. e. The flooring is to be completed prior to commencement of lease. 2.0 The lease agreement will be governed by the following- a. The monthly rental will be at your quoted price of Rs. 45.00 (Rupees Forty-five only) per square feet of super built up area per month for the building comprising of the Ground Floor. Mezzanine Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor. The basement parking is free of charge. The super built up area will be jointly measured and shall form the basis of the actual rental. 45.00 (Rupees Forty-five only) per square feet of super built up area per month for the building comprising of the Ground Floor. Mezzanine Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor. The basement parking is free of charge. The super built up area will be jointly measured and shall form the basis of the actual rental. b. Provision for air conditioning and 100 percent 24 X 7 power backup is included in the rental. c. The cost of consumables for power back up like diesel, engine oil shall be born by OIL. d. The AMC expenditure for the DG set and air-conditioners is included in the rental. e. All Municipal taxes and/or other taxes, levies as applicable/payable, shall be borne by you. f. Service tax is not included in the rental and shall be borne by OIL. g. The charges for electricity will be borne by OIL as per actual consumption. h. The lease shall be for a period of five (05) years, effective from the date of commencement of the Lease Agreement, with provision for extensions. i. The rental shall remain firm throughout the lease period of five (05) years. j. Although the lease period is five (05) years, however, the lease agreement may be renewable every eleven (11) months. Expenses for registration of lease agreement if any, shall be borne by OIL. On receipt of this Letter of Acceptance, kindly confirm your fulfillment of obligations to enable us to process the lease agreement. Thanking you. Yours faithfully Oil India Limited" 5. In terms of the above letter of acceptance dated 15.6.2010, the OIL authority vide its letter dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure-E) invited the representative of the petitioner company to attend the meeting to be held on 23.6.2010 at the Field Headquarters at Duliajan to discuss on the issue mentioned in the letter of acceptance. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 attended the meeting. Annexure-F is the minutes of the meeting indicating all the details of the discussions incorporating the following decisions: "a. The bidder agreed to provide accommodation in completed portion of the 3rd floor and install air conditioning and basic furnishing for functioning of temporary office with immediate effect. However, the bidder confirmed that it would take another 2 to 3 months for installation of the lift and the generator for power backup. However, the bidder confirmed that it would take another 2 to 3 months for installation of the lift and the generator for power backup. Since these two items are part of the bidders obligation, it was decided that until commissioning of the lift and generator the bidder would receive only 50% (fifty percent of the rental). b. The date of commencement of the lease would be 1st July, 2010. On completion of installation/commission of lift and generator, the bidder would receive 100% (Hundred percent) of the rental. c. LMC discussed the matter regarding completion of the interiors of the building as per OIL's requirement for early functioning of the CoE. Since normal process would take considerable time and also as the building is located in Guwahati and it would be difficult for execution and constant monitoring of the interior woks, LMC opined that it would be prudent to explore the possibility of execution of the interior works through the owner of the building as per our requirement/specification. Thus it was decided that the detail planning and specification of the interiors of the building would be drawn by engaging the services of a reputed architect through limited tender. The details specification would then be provided to the bidder M/s. Brahmaputra Business (P) Ltd. Guwahati to execute the job as per the specifications and under supervision of the Architect and OIL's officials. d. Although the lease period as per Tender was for 5 (five) years, considering the economics and the prime location of the property, the lease period is extended by another 2 (two) years. Thus the lease period will be for total 7 (seven) years. e. The total cost incurred for execution of the interior work would be recovered by the owner of the building as per actual, by way of additional rent, on a monthly basis. After recovery of this amount, the rent will be reverted to the base rent for any extended period beyond the 7 (seven) years. f. The base rent would be fixed and firm for a period of 5 (five) years and beyond this period the rental may be enhanced at mutually agreed rate, subject to a maximum of 15% (fifteen percent) of the base rent. g. The bidder confirmed that, if required, the building may be purchased outright by M/s. Oil India Limited after lease period of 5 (five) years. g. The bidder confirmed that, if required, the building may be purchased outright by M/s. Oil India Limited after lease period of 5 (five) years. h. The above would be subject to confirmation by the bidder on the aforesaid points raised and mutually agreed upon during the meeting. i. LMC also noted that the bidder should be advised to complete all statutory formalities of the Municipality/regulatory authorities in respect of the building" 6. The aforesaid development followed by Annexure-G letter of acceptance dated 5.7.2010. The relevant portion of the letter is quoted below: "Letter of Acceptance Dear Sir(s) 1.0. We write with reference to the discussion held with you on 23.06.2010 and your letter No. Nil dated 23.6.2010 on the aforesaid subject matter and take pleasure in informing you that we agree to take on lease the premises, offered by you, on GS Road, Guwahati with effect from 01.07.2010. This is however, subject to the following; i. The accommodation in completed portion of the 3rd floor with installation of air conditioning and basic furnishing, for functioning of temporary office, is to be completed with immediate effect. ii. As confirmed by you, it would take another 2 to 3 months for installation of the lift and the generator for power backup. Since these two items are part of the bidder's obligation, until commissioning of the lift and generator you will receive only 50% (fifty percent) of the rental. iii. The date of commencement of the lease would be 1st July, 2010. On completion of installation/commission of lift and generator, you will receive 100% (Hundred percent) of the rental. 2.0. The lease agreement will be governed by the following- a. The monthly rental will be at your quoted price of Rs. 45.00 (Rupees Forty-five only) per square feet of super built up area per month for the building comprising of the Ground Floor. Mezzanine Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor. The basement parking is free of charge. The super built up area will be jointly measured and shall form the basis of the actual rental. b. Provision for air conditioning and 100 percent 24 X 7 power backup is included in the rental. c. The cost of consumables for power back up like diesel, engine oil shall be born by OIL. d. The AMC expenditure for the DG set and air-conditioners is included in the rental. b. Provision for air conditioning and 100 percent 24 X 7 power backup is included in the rental. c. The cost of consumables for power back up like diesel, engine oil shall be born by OIL. d. The AMC expenditure for the DG set and air-conditioners is included in the rental. e. All Municipal taxes and/or other taxes, levies as applicable/payable, shall be borne by you. f. Service tax is not included in the rental and shall be borne by OIL. g. The charges for electricity will be borne by OIL as per actual consumption. h. Although the lease period is five (05) years, effective from the date of commencement of the Lease Agreement, the lease period is extended by another 2 (two) years. Thus the lease period will be for total seven (07) years. i. The detail planning and specification of the interiors of the building would be drawn by OPIL, by engaging the services of an Architect. The details specification would then be provided to you, for execution of the job, as per the specifications and under supervision of the Architect and OIL's officials. j. The total cost incurred for execution of the interior work be recovered by you over a period of 7 (seven) years, as per actual, by way of additional rent, on a monthly basis. After recovery of this amount, the rent will be reverted to the base rent for any extended period beyond the seven (07) years. k. The base rent would be fixed and firm for a period of five (05) years and beyond this period the rental may be enhanced at mutually agreed rate, subject to a maximum of fifteen percent (15%) of the base rent. l. Although the lease period is seven (07) years, however, the lease agreement may be renewable every eleven (11) months. Expenses for registration of lease agreement if any, shall be borne by OIL. m. As confirmed by you, if required, the building may be purchased outright by M/s. Oil India Limited after lease period of Five (05) years. On receipt of this Letter of Acceptance, kindly confirm your fulfillment of obligations to enable us to process the lease agreement. We also advise you to complete all statutory formalities of the Municipality/regulatory authorities in respect of the building." 7. On receipt of this Letter of Acceptance, kindly confirm your fulfillment of obligations to enable us to process the lease agreement. We also advise you to complete all statutory formalities of the Municipality/regulatory authorities in respect of the building." 7. By Annexure-H letter dated 31.8.2010, the petitioner intimated the OIL authority about installation of Air Conditioners and basic furnishing for functioning of temporary office as well as installation of fully automatic 8 passengers lift and 250 KVA. Jakson Genset. By the said letter, the petitioner also requested to provide 100% rent with effect from 1.9.2010. After the aforesaid development, the parties entered into the Annexure-I Deed of Lease for office premises executed on 15.11.2010. 8. By Annexure-J letter dated 20.11.2010, the petitioner, in reference to the meeting held with the OIL authority on 15.11.2010 expressed its agreement to provide fully furnished building at G.S. Road, Rukminigaon, Guwahati for the proposed 'Centre of Excellence' as per the specification/requirement provided by their Architect/Interior Designer. The petitioners also informed that for preparing the furnished building, it would charge an extra rent in addition to the normal building rent and for that purpose presented two models for payment of rent as per their satisfaction. The petitioners further provided that it would be agreeable to any of the proposed models with the charge of rent as indicated and shall provide full cooperation if the extra works were executed by deputing third party at their own cost According to the petitioner, the respondent OIL did not respond to the said letter. 9. From the averments made in the writ petition, including the communications by and between the parties annexed to the writ petition, it appears that there was some kind of dispute regarding installation of Air Conditioners with necessary accessories in all floors and also in respect of flooring with Ceramic Tiles. It was the plea of the petitioner that since more than 2 1/2 years had passed, there was already high escalation on the price of Ceramic Tiles and therefore requested the OIL authority to compensate the price differences and if the same were not agreeable, the petitioner offered to provide heavy duty double charged vitrified flooring on the entire ground floor with the undertaking that it would complete the concrete casting of the top layer on all the floors and would also provide cement polish finish on the floors. 10. 10. The OIL on its turn requested the petitioner to complete the works connected with flooring, external door/windows, steps in the front and Air Conditioning so as to enable them to make the whole building operational. They also directed the petitioner to defer installation of ACs till thy completed the repairing/redecoration of the walls. The petitioner was also requested to complete the electrical works as per OILs specification. By letter dated 7.10.2012, the petitioner informed the OIL authority that the Air Conditioners would be installed as per their requirement, but provision for electrical connection for the Air Conditioners would have to be provided by the respondents. 11. The respondent vide their letter dated 13.12.2012 requested the petitioner to complete the external doors and windows as soon as possible. They also expressed their concern over the price rise of Air Conditions and requested for installation of Air Conditioner as pr their requirement by the schedule date prescribed by the petitioner, which was dated 31.3.2013. By letter dated 2.12.2013, the OIL authority informed the petitioner that fire safety audit was done by their Fire Safety Department and the authority had put forward certain observations and recommendations and though they had initiated steps for implementation of recommendations, few of them could not be implemented without involvement of the petitioner and accordingly requested the petitioner to provide one alternative staircase in addition to the one already in existence. According to the petitioner, the OIL authority prior to entering into the lease agreement never intimated the petitioner that they would install high value equipments in the 'Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies' or they would inspect safety audit through their Fire Safety Department after initiation of the lease. 12. In paragraph 25 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that when it was expected that all the disputed issues with the respondent OIL stood resolved, but the OIL authority most arbitrarily and illegally issued the Annexure-Z impugned letter dated 5.2.2015 demanding (i) refund of Rs. 10,96,123/- purportedly for incurring huge expenditure for covering the area of 8968 sq. ft. with vinyl flooring (ii) refund of Rs. 14,65,000/- purportedly for incurring expenses on electric wiring works for necessary minimum illumination of the building and provisions of Air Conditioners (iii) refund of Rs. 17,62,200/- purportedly for receiving excess rent for an area of 712 sq. ft. amounting to Rs. ft. with vinyl flooring (ii) refund of Rs. 14,65,000/- purportedly for incurring expenses on electric wiring works for necessary minimum illumination of the building and provisions of Air Conditioners (iii) refund of Rs. 17,62,200/- purportedly for receiving excess rent for an area of 712 sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 32000/- p.m. till January 2015 (iv) requesting the petitioner to furnish copy(s) of authenticated documents from appropriate authority certifying the height of the building purported on the ground that the height of the building is 17.62 mtrs. As per their measurement as against the petitioner's information that the height of the building is 15.62 mtrs. By the impugned, the respondent OIL also reduced the rent by Rs. 32040/- p.m. with effect from February, 2015 and kept the payment of rent in abeyance with effect from February, 2015 till the matter is resolved. 13. Referring to the impugned letter dated 5.2.2015, in paragraph-25 of the writ petition, the petitioner has also stated thus: "It is worthwhile to mention herein that till date the petitioner has not received tiny communication or correspondence from the respondent authorities for mutually resolving the dispute." 14. It is in the aforesaid factual back ground, that the petitioners have assailed the impugned communication on the ground of being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable. According to the petitioners, the communication and the decision conveyed therein is without any cogent reason and based on frivolous and baseless ground with mala fide motive to harassing and humiliating the petitioner on extraneous consideration. It has also been contended that the impugned communication is in violation of the principles of the terms and conditions of the lease deed/agreement referred to above. Referring to Clause-7 of the lease agreement (quoted below), the petitioner has also contended that in the event of any dispute arising under the lease deed between the parties, it should be settled firstly by mutual consent and in case of failure, should be referred for settlement by arbitration. "7. Referring to Clause-7 of the lease agreement (quoted below), the petitioner has also contended that in the event of any dispute arising under the lease deed between the parties, it should be settled firstly by mutual consent and in case of failure, should be referred for settlement by arbitration. "7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION & JURISDICTION:- In the event of any dispute arising under this lease deed between the parties, the same shall be first settled by mutual consent of both the parties and in case no settlement arrived between the parties then the same shall be referred for settlement by arbitration of three Arbitrators, one each to be nominated by each Party and the third arbitrator to be appointed by the said two nominated Arbitrators. The Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statue, amendment or re-enactment thereof. The place of Arbitration shall be at Guwahati and the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati alone shall have the jurisdiction." 15. With the aforesaid plea made in the writ petition, the petitioners have contended that the respondent OIL prior to reaching the impugned decision did not initiate any steps to mutually settle the dispute and/or resorting to arbitration by invoking the above quoted Clause-7 of the lease agreement. It has been specifically contended (refer paragraph-27") that the OIL authority violated the Clause-7 of the lease agreement and decided the matter unilaterally without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and arbitrarily stopped the payment of rent with effect from February, 2015. 16. Responding to the writ petition, the respondent OIL has filed an affidavit-in-op-position raising a preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition. In paragraph-3(a) of the affidavit, the respondents have referred to the letter dated 5.2.2015 issued by it to the petitioner, by which, certain contentions were raised regarding shortfall on the part of the lessor i.e. the petitioner in complying with certain obligation of the lease deed and on that basis informed the petitioner about certain action proposed to be taken. It has been contended that the petitioner would have either accepted the said action of OIL or disapproved the same. It has been contended that the petitioner would have either accepted the said action of OIL or disapproved the same. According to the respondents OIL, the petitioner having disapproved the action contemplated by OIL as projected in its letter dated 5.2.2015 gave rise to a dispute between the parties and that the said dispute is an offshoot of the terms & conditions of the lease deed and therefore the same is required to be resolved through inbuilt mechanism prescribed in the lease agreement. It has also been contended that the issue raised in the writ petition being disputed questions of fact, cannot be adjudicated upon under writ jurisdiction. For a ready reference, paragraph(a) and (b) raising the aforesaid pleas by the respondent OIL in their counter affidavit are quoted below: "3. a. That the dispute that has arisen is pursuant to a correspondence dated 05.02.2015 issued by the Oil India Ltd. i.e., the Lessee, addressed to the Lessor i.e., the petitioner herein. By way of the said correspondence dated 05.02.2015, the Oil India Ltd. has raised certain contentions as regarding short fall on the part of the Lessor in complying with certain obligations of the Lease Deed and on that basis Oil India Ltd. has informed the petitioner, about certain actions i.e., proposed to be taken by Oil India Ltd. The petitioner could have either accepted the said action of Oil India Ltd. or would have disapproved the same. In the present case, the petitioner having disapproved the actions contemplated by Oil India Ltd., as projected in its correspondence dated 05.02.2015, has therefore given rise to a dispute between the parties. It must be appreciated that the said dispute is an offshoot of the terms & conditions of the Lease Deed and therefore, the dispute having arisen within the four corners of the Lease Deed, the dispute resolving mechanism as prescribed in the said Lease Agreement, would naturally have to be invoked by the petitioner, for the redressal and adjudication of the dispute, that has been now sought to be advanced by the petitioner side. The Lease Deed that exists between the parties, at Clause 7 provides for Arbitration Clause, for redressal of any disputes arising under the Lease Deed. The Lease Deed that exists between the parties, at Clause 7 provides for Arbitration Clause, for redressal of any disputes arising under the Lease Deed. Thus, therefore, in view of the existence of the Arbitration Clause between the parties, the dispute i.e., sought to be arisen at the behest of the petitioner, is required to be adjudicated through arbitration, for which the petitioner is at liberty to invoke the Arbitration Clause under the Lease Deed. Thus, this writ petition in view of the present fact is not maintainable and is therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of want of maintainability. b. That without prejudice to the above referred ground of challenge, as regard maintainability of the writ petition, the deponent would further like to state that the petitioner have raised issues which are disputed in nature and cannot be therefore adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. The issues raised by the petitioner as well as the contentions of Oil India Ltd. deals with the various omission and commission on the part of the parties as regard Civil Construction Works, which requires a detailed adjudication, with the need for calling of evidences. Thus, the matter been of the nature of a Civil Dispute, it is in fact, the Civil Courts, which would have better jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter. In view of this ground also, this writ petition fails on the count of want of maintainability and is therefore, liable to be dismissed." 17. I have heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and have also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel representing the respondent OIL. I have also considered the entire materials on record. While Mr. Saikia, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner exclusively referring to the averments made in the writ petition and the documents enclosed strenuously argued that the writ petition is maintainable in view of the arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel representing the OIL submits that in view of the definite clause of arbitration in the lease agreement, Writ Court will be reluctant to adjudicate the matter that too involving dispute questions of fact and adjudication of terms & conditions of the lease agreement including the correspondences by and between the parties. 18. Mr. Saikia, learned Sr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel representing the OIL submits that in view of the definite clause of arbitration in the lease agreement, Writ Court will be reluctant to adjudicate the matter that too involving dispute questions of fact and adjudication of terms & conditions of the lease agreement including the correspondences by and between the parties. 18. Mr. Saikia, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. (2004) 3 SCC 553 : ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. 2. (1971) 3 SCC 883 : General Manager, NF Railway Vs. Dinabandhu Chakraborty 3. (2007) 10 SCC 88 : M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn Ltd. Vs. Jahan Khan 4. (2009) 16 SCC 187 : Mariamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank 5. (2011) 5 SCC 697 : Union of India Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. 6. (2010) 13 SCC 427 : Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 7. (2009) 14 SCC 451 : National Sample Survey Organization Vs. Champa Properties Ltd. 8. (2003) 2 SCC 107 : Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. 2002 (2) GLT 98 : Daya Engineering Works Ltd. M/S. Vs. Union of India 2. 2006 (1) GLT 19 : State of Manipur Vs. Moirangthem Chaoba Singh 3. 2008 (1) GLT 871 : P. Jibon Singh Vs. State of Manipur 4. (2008) 8 SCC 172 : Pimpri Chinch-wad Municipal Corporation Vs. Gayatri Construction Company. 19. The decisions on which Mr. Saikia, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner have placed reliance are on the maintainability of writ petitions even involving disputed questions of fact and alternative remedy being not a bar for entertaining writ petitions seeks to enforce a fundamental right; when there is failure of natural justice; where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction etc. The decisions, on which Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel representing the OIL has placed reliance, are on non-maintainability of writ petition when there is an alternative and approved forum for resolution of dispute arising out of a contract. 20. The decisions, on which Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel representing the OIL has placed reliance, are on non-maintainability of writ petition when there is an alternative and approved forum for resolution of dispute arising out of a contract. 20. In ABL International Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court while holding that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of fact regarding consideration of evidence not on record will not normally be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, also held that the Writ Court can very well go into the same and decide the objections if facts permit. It was also held that mere alternative remedy shall not be a bar for entertaining a writ petition. 21. In Dinabandhu Chakraborty (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with violation of Principles of Natural Justice. This judgment has been referred to, to buttress the argument that the impugned action of OIL is without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In Jahan Khan (supra) dealing with a service matter, the Apex Court held that the exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and that alternative remedy does not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ court's jurisdiction of judicial review in cases (i) seeking enforcement of a fundamental right, (ii) where there is a failure of natural justice and (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings is whole without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenged. 22. In Mariamma Roy (supra) also, the Apex Court held that when violation of natural justice is alleged, even if an alternative remedy is available, a writ petition is maintainable. In Tantia Construction (supra), the Apex Court dealing with termination/discharge of contract held that arbitration Clause is not a bar to invocation of writ jurisdiction when injustice is caused and rule of law is violated. It was also held that the constitutional powers vested in High Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to authorities. 23. In Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) emphasizing the need for right of hearing and duty to give reasons in the impugned order, it was held that absence of reasons in original orders cannot stand compensated by presence of reasons given in appellate order upholding original order. 23. In Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) emphasizing the need for right of hearing and duty to give reasons in the impugned order, it was held that absence of reasons in original orders cannot stand compensated by presence of reasons given in appellate order upholding original order. In Champa Properties Ltd. (supra) also dealing with the arbitration clause in respect of a lease agreement held that the arbitration clause in the lease agreement did not cover or govern the issue raised in the writ petition and thus would not come in the way of the writ petition being entertained. In the said case, the Apex Court was concerned with determination of rent by Hiring Committee and it was held that such determination was not statutorily or compulsorily binding on the parties. Dealing with the (sic) writ petition in view of the alternative remedy of arbitration clause, the Apex Court held that the relief claimed by the respondents in the writ petition arising out of the final memorandum issued by the Government of India and recommendations of Hiring Committee found that the arbitration clause in the lease agreement did not cover or govern the issue raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, it was held that the same would not come in the way of the writ petition being entertained. 24. In Harbanslal Sahnia (supra) also, the Apex Court held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. When the petitioner's dealership came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to relief from the High Court instead of driving them to arbitration proceeding. 25. In Daya Engineering (supra) this Court held that a writ petition involving contractual obligation and disputed question of fact requiring the evidence to be placed for resolution of dispute would not be maintainable. By the said decision, direction was issued to take recourse to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. In Moirangthem Chaoba Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that in a dispute arising out of statutory contractual obligation where remedy by way of arbitration is available cannot be adjudicated upon exercising writ jurisdiction. By the said decision, direction was issued to take recourse to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. In Moirangthem Chaoba Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that in a dispute arising out of statutory contractual obligation where remedy by way of arbitration is available cannot be adjudicated upon exercising writ jurisdiction. In P. Jibon Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that in a non-statutory contract containing an arbitration clause, the writ petition filed for recovery of dues will not be maintainable. In Gayatri Construction Co. (supra), the Apex Court dealing with a contractual matter held that the availability of alternative remedy (agreement providing for in-house remedy for settlement of disputes) would bar the writ jurisdiction setting aside the interference by High Court granting the leave to the writ petition inspite of noticing the alternative remedy available held that it would be open for the respondent/writ petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy. 26. As has been held by the Apex Court in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1987 SC 1073 , the ratio of a decision should be understood in the fact situation of the particular case. It has been held that, it is an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it Keeping in mind the settled provision of law, let me now examine the rival contentions regarding maintainability of the writ petition. The first question that falls for determination is as to whether the dispute raised in this writ petition has arisen between the parties out of any statutory contract. The contractual obligation by and between the parties involved in this writ petition has not arisen out of any statutory contractual obligation. The dispute has arisen purely out of a non-statutory contract. There is also no pub-lie law element in the said non-statutory contract. Law is well settled that the action of the State related to the contractual obligation is not to be ordinarily examined by Writ Court unless such action has some public law character attached to it. 27. In State of U.P. Vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 22 , the Apex Court was concerned with a dispute relating to terms of private contract. 27. In State of U.P. Vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 22 , the Apex Court was concerned with a dispute relating to terms of private contract. It was held that in such a situation, proper course would be to reference to arbitration or institution of suit and not writ petition. In the said case under terms of contract between the appellant State Government and respondent public limited corporation, the rate quoted by respondent was inclusive of sales tax and methodology to deduct the same. It was held that the High Court was justified in not going into the dispute as it involved interpretation of terms of the contract. Mere fact that it also involved interpretation of the order issued under statutory provision would not convert it into public law issue. In paragraph-16 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed thus: "16. Firstly, the contract between the parties is a contract in the realm of private law. It is governed by the provisions of the contract Act or may be also by certain provisions of the sale of Goods Act. Any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated, and could not have been agitated, in a writ petition. That is a matter either for arbitration as provided by the contract of for Civil court as the case may be whether any amount is due to the respondent from the appellant-Government under the contract and, if so, how much and the further question whether retention or refusal to pay any amount by the Government is justified, or not are all matters which cannot be agitated in or adjudicated upon in a writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition, viz., to restrain the Government from deducting particular amount from the writ petitioner's bill(s) was not a prayer which could be granted by the High court under Article 226. Indeed, the High Court has not granted the said prayer." 28. In Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. The prayer in the writ petition, viz., to restrain the Government from deducting particular amount from the writ petitioner's bill(s) was not a prayer which could be granted by the High court under Article 226. Indeed, the High Court has not granted the said prayer." 28. In Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bharati Industries reported in (2005) 12 SCC 725 , the Apex Court dealing with similar claim arising out of alleged breach of contract held that the High Court ought not to have dealt with disputed question of fact held that a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact in respect of acceptance of offer of price made by the respondent for non-serviceable machineries/equipments and other scrap materials of the corporation would not be maintainable and set aside the order of the High Court directing the corporation to pay the writ petitioner, the amount specified by it. In paragraphs-7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of the judgment, it was observed thus: "7. A bare perusal of the High Court's judgment shows that there was clear non-application of mind. On one hand the High Court observed that the disputed questions cannot be gone into a writ petition. It was also noticed that essence of dispute was breach of contract. After coming to the above conclusions the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition. Surprisingly, the High Court proceeded to examine the case solely on the writ petitioner's assertion and on a very curious reasoning that though the appellant-Corporation claimed that the value of articles lifted was nearly rupees 14.90 lakhs no details were specifically given. From the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court it is crystal clear that relevant details disputing claim of the writ petitioner were given. Value of articles lifted by the writ petitioner is a disputed factual question. Where a complicated question of fact is involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinized and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. (See: State of Bihar v. Jain Plastic and Chemicals Ltd. [2002] 1 SCC 216)." "8. In a catena of cases this Court had held that where dispute revolves round questions of fact, the matter ought not be entertained under Article226 of the Constitution. (See: State Bank of India and Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union and Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 74, Chairman. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and Ors. v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and Anr., [1999] 7 SCC 298)." "9. In the instant case the High Court has itself observed that disputed questions of fact were involved and yet went on to give directions as if it was adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The course is clearly impermissible. (See: General Manager Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Sultanpur U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and Ors. [2003] 8 SCC 639, Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Anr. [2003] 4 SCC 317)." "10. In National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and Anr. [2003] 7 SCC 410, it was observed by this Court that the question whether the writ petition was maintainable in a claim arising out of a breach of contract should be answered first by the High Court as it would go to the root of the matter. The writ petitioner had displayed ingenuity in its search for invalidating circumstances; but a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for impeaching contractual obligations. (See: Har Shankar and Ors. etc. etc. v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors., AIR (1975) SC 1121 and The Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., AIR (1981) SC 1368)." "11. In M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (See: Har Shankar and Ors. etc. etc. v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors., AIR (1975) SC 1121 and The Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., AIR (1981) SC 1368)." "11. In M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR (1977) SC 1496, the types of cases in which breaches of alleged obligation by the State or its agents can be set up were enumerated. The third category, indicated is where the contract entered into between the State and the person aggrieved in non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms of the contract and in exercise of executive power of the State. The present case is covered by the said category. No writ order can be issued under Article 226 to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract; pure and simple. It is more so when factual disputes are involved." 29. In Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Deka Consultancy And Agency Services reported in 1999 (2) GLT 217, the Division Bench of this Court in a dispute relating to contractual matter involving disputed question of feet held that when there was an arbitration clause, the proper course was to took recourse to arbitration or institution of suit. The issue was regarding private contract between public corporation and a private party as in the instant case. It was held that the adjudication through a writ proceeding was not proper. In paragraphs of the said judgment, the Division Bench observed thus: "9. In the instant case, there was a clause of arbitration in the contract agreement between the parties but the contractor has approached the Court in writ jurisdiction without initiating and exhausting the arbitration proceeding. Further mere is dispute between the parties as regards the supply of earth from the project site and also as regards the total quantity of work done by the contractor till the time of termination. It is well settled that such disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ proceeding. If the contract was illegally or irregularity terminated the contractor could have approached either civil Court or the Arbitrator for compensation or damages, if any." 30. In National Highways Authority of India Vs. It is well settled that such disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ proceeding. If the contract was illegally or irregularity terminated the contractor could have approached either civil Court or the Arbitrator for compensation or damages, if any." 30. In National Highways Authority of India Vs. Ganga Enterprises reported in (2003) 7 SCC 410 also, dealing with the nature of the scope of judicial review in respect of contractual dispute, the Apex Court held that the question of maintainability of the writ petition ought to have been decided first and also held that dispute relating to contract cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution. Inparagraph-6 of the judgment, it was held thus: "6. The Respondent then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, for refund of the amount. On the pleadings before it, the High Court raised two questions viz. (a) whether the forfeiture of security deposit is without authority of law and without any binding contract between the parties and also contrary to Section 5 of the Contract Act and (b) whether the writ petition is maintainable in a claim arising out of a breach of contract. Question (b) should have been first answered as it would go to the root of the matter. The High Court instead considered question (a) and then chose not to answer question (b). In our view, the answer to question (b) is clear. It is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been so held in the cases of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil reported in [2000] 6 SCC 293, State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 22 and B.D.A. v. Ajai Pal Singh reported in (1989) 2 SCC 116 . This is settled law. The dispute in this case was regarding the terms of offer. They were thus contractual disputes in respect of which a Writ Court was not the proper forum. Mr. Dave however relied upon the cases of Verigamto Naveen v. Government of A.P. reported in [2001] 8 SCC 344 and Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India reported in [1986] 3 SCC 247. These however are cases where the Writ Court was enforcing a statutory right or duty. Mr. Dave however relied upon the cases of Verigamto Naveen v. Government of A.P. reported in [2001] 8 SCC 344 and Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India reported in [1986] 3 SCC 247. These however are cases where the Writ Court was enforcing a statutory right or duty. These cases do not lay down that a Writ Court can interfere in a matter of contract only. Thus on the ground of maintainability the Petition should have been dismissed." 31. In Barelli Development Authority Vs. Ajai Pal Singh reported in (1989) 2 SCC 116 , the Apex Court observed that there are catena of decisions, in which the Apex has discouraged the use of Article 226 for resolution of the issue arising from contract between the State on one side and the private individual on the other and particularly when such contracts are non-statutory contract having no public law element in them. 32. The principle of law which emerges from all the above decisions is that where the State is one of the party to the contract which is non-statutory in nature and further where there is no public law element involved there would be no question of issuance of any writ or order under Article 226 so as to compel the State to remedy alleging breach of contract pure and simple. It was held by the Apex Court that when State and/or "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 enter into ordinary contract with private persons, parties are governed by the terms of the contract and the aggrieved party is not entitled to seek remedy under Article 226 for breach of contract Setting aside the judgment of the High Court, it was held thus: "22. There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. 23. 23. In view of the authoritative judicial pronouncements of this Court in the series of cases dealing with the scope of interference of a High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in hand, we are constrained to hold that the High Court in the present case has gone wrong in its finding that there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the appellants herein in increasing the cost of the houses/flats and the rate of monthly installments and giving directions in the writ petitions as prayed for." 33. In ABL International Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court considering the issue as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to enforce a contractual obligation of the State or its instrumentality, by an aggrieved party, referring to its earlier decisions, held that when an authority has perform a public function for public duty, if there is a failure, a writ petition is maintainable. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties does not involve any public function or a public duty. In paragraph-27 and 28 of the judgment, it was observed thus: "27. From the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:- (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. 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. 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 Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks. Mumbai & Ors. 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 Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks. Mumbai & Ors. [ 1998 (8) SCC 1 ]. 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. 34. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is plenary in nature, but the Court imposes upon itself certain restrictions and the jurisdiction would not normally exercised to the exclusion of other available remedies. While it is true that a writ petition is not absolutely barred in the matter of non-statutory contract with the State, but factual situation has to be tested to see as to whether the writ petition should be entertained at all as there is a lot of difference between the two concepts of tenability of the petition and the propriety to entertain the same. There is also difference in a contract between private party and contract to which State is a party. In the sense that while in the former only personal interest are involved but in the later, the State must act for public good while exercising its power and discharging its duties. 35. I have very carefully considered the materials on record including the lease agreement I do not find any public law element in it. In the instant case, the petitioner itself has referred to the arbitration clause with the following statement in paragraph-27 of the writ petition. "27..............However, in the instant case the respondent authorities prior to reaching such impugned decision of claiming refund and reducing/stalling of monthly rent w.e.f. February 2015 have not initiated any steps to mutually settle the dispute/matter or resorting to arbitration by invoking clause 7 of the lease agreement. The respondent authorities in violation of the aforesaid tender clause 7 decided the matter unilaterally without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and arbitrarily stopped the payment of rent w.e.f. February 2015. The respondent authorities in violation of the aforesaid tender clause 7 decided the matter unilaterally without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and arbitrarily stopped the payment of rent w.e.f. February 2015. The respondent authorities before coming to any conclusion ought to have tried to mutually resolve the dispute and by not resorting to such procedure have vitiated its impugned decisions issued vide letter dated 5.2.2015 and thus, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court." 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition involving disputed question of fact in respect of a non-statutory contract by and between the petitioner and the respondent OIL bound by clauses of the lease agreement referred to above coupled with the dispute that arose between them traceable to the communications involved between them, is required to be resolved through arbitration clause quoted above. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of requiring the parties to take recourse to clause 7 of the lease agreement, which provides for resolution of the dispute under lease deed, firstly by mutual consent and of both the parties and in case of failure, to refer the dispute for settlement by arbitration, which is also governed by Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under Section 9 of which, the petitioners are also entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Writ petition is disposed of with the above liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.