JUDGMENT : S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 1,08,607/- (Rupees one lakh eight thousand and six hundred and seven only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of due immediately to the petitioner. 1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 1,08,607/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of due immediately to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Meenakshi Maaligai Marriage Hall at No. 445/140, T.H. Road, Tondaiyarpet, Chennai. The Assistant Commissioner, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Thiruvottiyur Region, approached the petitioner and requested to allot the marriage hall for the period from 01.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 in order to accommodate their Department Employees for their engagement and convenient of their stay of their engagement in verification of Ration Cards. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the respondents have utilised the marriage hall for the said period. However, they have not paid the full rent as agreed. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents would reveal that the petitioner in his consent letter dated 06.07.2009 had quoted Rs. 4000/- per day as daily rent and Rs. 7/- per unit towards the electricity charges. The petitioner had not demanded any other charges including that of watchman/security charges, cleaning charges, water charges, sewerage charges, interest for any alleged belated payment, etc. 115 employees of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation were accommodated in the said Kalyana Mandabam belonging to the writ petitioner from 31.08.2009. The work of 100% intensive door-to-door verification of Family Cards in respect of Thiruvottiyur Zone was completed within the stipulated period of 31.10.2009. The said work at Royapuram Zone could not be completed. 4. The respondents made a request to accommodate the employees beyond 31.10.2009, but the petitioner had expressed his inability to accommodate the employees. In view of the booking of marriage hall, the rental charges and electricity charges as demanded by the petitioner was Rs. 2,70,708/- out of the said amount of Rs. 2,70,708/- the respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 2,62,400/- as per the counter affidavit, the balance to be paid is Rs. 8,308/-. In view of the booking of marriage hall, the rental charges and electricity charges as demanded by the petitioner was Rs. 2,70,708/- out of the said amount of Rs. 2,70,708/- the respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 2,62,400/- as per the counter affidavit, the balance to be paid is Rs. 8,308/-. The accommodation charges for the period from 02.11.2009 to 19.11.2009, being Rs. 34,463/- was paid to Chennai Corporation by the 3rd respondent on 12.04.2010. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 8,308/- only from the 2nd respondent. 5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the nature of the dispute between the parties would reveal that it is a contractual obligation between the parties. There was an agreement between the parties in respect of hiring of the marriage hall belongs to the petitioner. The terms and conditions were agreed between the parties. Such contractual disputes cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The terms and conditions of contract are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences including oral evidences, if required. 6. Contrarily, the High Court cannot form an opinion in respect of such disputes, which involves contractual obligations between the parties. The petitioner states that the respondents are bound to pay a sum of Rs. 1,08,607/- per contra, the 2nd respondent states that they are bound to pay a sum of Rs. 8,308/-. This being the counter statements made nearly based on the affidavit, issues cannot be resolved. Thus, the petitioner has to approach the competent Court of law for the purpose of redressal of the grievances. However, in respect of the admitted due, the respondents are bound to settle the same as per the counter affidavit. 7. The 2nd respondent said that a sum of Rs. 8,308/- is due to the petitioner, the said amount is directed to be settled in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is of an opinion that, further due is also to be paid, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Court of law for adjudication of issues based on the documents and evidences by following the procedures. 8. With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.