JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Questioning the maintainability of Estate Case No. 01 of 2013, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts disclosed in the present proceeding are that, an unregistered agreement dated 12.02.2007 was executed between the petitioner-Firm and the respondent-Corporation whereunder, one shop room measuring 1138 Sq. Ft. on the ground floor of the Hindustan Building, Main Road, Bistupur, District-Singhbhum East was leased with effect from 01.08.2005. The period under the lease was to expire on 31.07.2010. In the agreement dated 12.02.2007, there is a provision for renewal of the lease and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner made an application on 04.05.2010 seeking renewal of the agreement for a further period of 5 years. It is stated that on 18.07.2009, the premises in question was inspected and serious violations of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement were found. Vide notice dated 15.04.2010, the lease was terminated and the petitioner-Firm was directed to vacate the premises in question within 30 days. Subsequently, letter dated 01.07.2010 was issued by the respondent-Corporation stating that the lease has expired on 31.07.2010 and the petitioner firm was directed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession. 3. Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner raising the question of jurisdiction of the Estate Officer submits that the premises under the lease agreement dated 12.02.2007 is not a “public premises” under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the petitioner-firm is not an unauthorised occupant. The lease agreement is an unregistered instrument and thus, the petitioner is a tenant on month to month basis, and therefore, proceeding for eviction of the petitioner can be initiated under the tenancy laws only. It is further contended that in view of pendency of Title Suit No. 101 of 2010, the proceeding in Estate Case No. 01 of 2013 cannot continue. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about 3 years after the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 101 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction against the respondent Corporation, Estate Case No. 01 of 2013 has been filed to avoid the proceeding initiated by the petitioner. Alleging arbitrary action of the respondent-Corporation and relying on decision in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. Alleging arbitrary action of the respondent-Corporation and relying on decision in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 406 , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that institution of Estate Case No. 01 of 2013 by the respondent-Corporation is an abuse of the process of law. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the question of jurisdiction should have been raised at the first instance before the Estate Officer in Estate Case No. 01 of 2013. The plea that the premises in question is not a public premises and the petitioner cannot be declared an unauthorised occupant, are the issues which can be agitated and decided in Estate Case No. 01 of 2013. Refuting the allegation of arbitrary action against the respondent-Corporation, the learned counsel refers to judgment in Jiwan Dass vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 694 and submits that the respondent-Corporation like any other landlord is entitled to use the premises to the best of its benefit. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The lease agreement dated 12.02.2007 was executed between the parties, is not in dispute. The said agreement is an unregistered agreement however, neither the tenancy is denied nor the petitioner has denied that the respondent-Corporation is the landlord. It is also a matter of record that vide letter dated 15.04.2010, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within 30 days. The reason disclosed in letter dated 15.04.2010 is violation of the lease agreement. In response to application for renewal dated 04.05.2010, the respondent-Corporation intimated the petitioner that the tenancy would be determined w.e.f. 01.08.2010. The petitioner has brought on record letter dated 01.07.2010, which was written by the respondent-Corporation in response to letter dated 04.05.2010. The allegation of breach of conditions of the lease agreement has been disputed by the petitioner however, the petitioner has not challenged in any judicial proceeding either letter dated 15.04.2010 or the communication dated 01.07.2010. The petitioner has brought on record letter dated 01.07.2010, which was written by the respondent-Corporation in response to letter dated 04.05.2010. The allegation of breach of conditions of the lease agreement has been disputed by the petitioner however, the petitioner has not challenged in any judicial proceeding either letter dated 15.04.2010 or the communication dated 01.07.2010. The prayer in Title Suit No. 101 of 2010 reads as under: “15(i) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men and agents from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises, more fully described in the schedule below illegally or forcibly without taking recourse to the provisions of law and/or to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the same in any manner.” 6. The entire case of the petitioner/plaintiff in Title Suit No. 101 of 2010 is based on the clause of renewal in the lease agreement dated 12.02.2007. The proceeding in Estate Case No. 01 of 2013 is a proceeding in law under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, cannot be denied. The contention that the institution of Estate Case No. 01 of 2013 is to frustrate the cases instituted by the petitioner is thus, liable to be rejected. The plea that the premises in question is not covered under Section 2(e) of 1971 Act and whether the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question or not, are the issues which would be adjudicated in Estate Case No. 01 of 2013. Merely raising a plea that the premises in question is not public premises and the petitioner is not in unauthorised occupation of the said premises, in the present proceeding the maintainability of Estate Case No. 01 of 2013 cannot be challenged. The jurisdiction of the Estate Officer is not barred by any law and the respondent has in the written statement specifically challenged the maintainability of Title Suit No. 101 of 2010. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is no longer in dispute that the provisions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 would prevail upon the general tenancy laws. It is further submitted that the guidelines issued by the Central Government are merely advisory and it would not bar the proceeding in Estate Case No. 01 of 2013. 7. It is further submitted that the guidelines issued by the Central Government are merely advisory and it would not bar the proceeding in Estate Case No. 01 of 2013. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition would not cause any prejudice to the parties in the proceeding before the Estate Officer and all the pleas raised by the petitioner can be raised in Estate Case No. 01 of 2013.