JUDGMENT S.M.MODAK, J. - Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Talekar for the Petitioner, learned AGP for the Respondent-State and learned Advocate General for Respondent No.2. 2. By two orders/notices dtd. 7/9/2020 and 19/10/2020 issued by the Lands and Estate Manager and Deputy Metropolitan Commissioner of MMRDA, the Petitioner was asked to pay arrears of rent and they were informed of resumption order in case of non compliance. 3. These orders are challenged by the petitioners. Whereas during pendency of this petition, Metropolitan Commissioner of MMRDA as per the order dtd. 7/9/2020 refused to review the earlier orders of resumption. So also the bank guarantee was encashed. Hence by way of amendment to this petition, the petitioner has also challenged those actions. 4. The Respondents have appeared and they have taken objection to maintainability of this Writ Petition apart from denial of the allegations. According to them, remedy of filing Writ Petition as resorted is not permissible by law. The Respondents have justified all actions taken by them. 5. Before going into the issue of maintainability objection and other merits, it will be useful to consider few facts which are relevant. They are as follows:- (a) The MMRDA has invited e-tender for Food Court and allied usages of the premises situated in Urban Plaza building at Bandra-Kurla Complex. The Bandra-Kurla Complex is developed as finance and business district centre and there was need of starting restaurant and eating places. The tender of the Petitioner was accepted and lease deed dtd. 6/1/2016 was executed in between the parties. The essential terms of that lease deed are as follows:- (i) The duration of sale deed was for ten years. (ii) The area of leased premises was 2510.379 sq. mtrs. + 111.512 sq. mtrs. (basement) (iii) Monthly rent was Rs.13, 51, 786.00 with 5% increase every year. (iv) The Respondents have paid Rs.1.00 crore towards premium and also furnished bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1, 25, 82, 383.00. (v) There is provision for re-entering the premises by the Respondents in case of rent being not paid within 30 days or in case of other contingencies referred in clause No.(6). 6. (iv) The Respondents have paid Rs.1.00 crore towards premium and also furnished bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1, 25, 82, 383.00. (v) There is provision for re-entering the premises by the Respondents in case of rent being not paid within 30 days or in case of other contingencies referred in clause No.(6). 6. On perusal of the pleadings by both sides, it reveals that there was dispute in between the parties on account of various reasons including not paying rent in time, non-registration of lease deed, not obtaining fire license, carrying out alteration in leased premises, not carrying out repairs to the lift from an agency and so on. Both the parties have relied upon various correspondence depicting allegations and counter allegations. The record further reveals that the Deputy Metropolitan Commissioner of MMRDA has passed an order dtd. 28/11/2018 thereby asking the lessee/Petitioner to vacate demised premises within seven days from the date of the order. This order was passed in exercise of power under clause 6 of the lease deed. 7. The correctness of said order was subject matter of challenge in earlier Writ Petition (L) No.4127 of 2018. Learned Single Judge granted liberty to the Petitioner to withdraw that Petition and adopt appropriate proceedings in law (relevant orders are on page 66 to 68). The thrust of arguments of learned Advocate General is not resorting appropriate remedy as per the said liberty and instead filed this Writ Petition. That is why he strongly opposed maintainability of present Writ Petition. Furthermore, according to learned Advocate General considering the nature of present dispute based on contract he has also challenged exercise of equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to him there is serious disputed questions of fact involved and which cannot be gone into by writ Court. Hence he also requested this Court not to exercise the equity jurisdiction. 8. Whereas according to Mr.Talekar, learned Senior Counsel, the two notices challenged in this Petition dtd. 7/9/2020 and 19/10/2020 were based on considerations, different from the order of eviction and as such the Writ Petition is maintainable According to him even though there are allegations and counter allegations based upon the rights arising from contract, there is no total ban for exercise of equity jurisdiction. He has quoted some of the judgments in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered inspite of contractual disputes. He has quoted some of the judgments in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered inspite of contractual disputes. Liberty granted in earlier Petition 9. First of all we will deal with factual objections about not resorting to appropriate remedy as permitted by learned Single Judge on 20/1/2019. With the assistance of both sides we have read that order. The outcome of that order is as follows:- (a) Liberty was granted to withdraw the Petition to adopt appropriate proceedings as permissible in law, and (b) MMRDA through their learned Advocate has agreed to decide the representation made by the Petitioner to MMRDA. 10. Whereas the Respondents in their affidavit in reply has categorically stated that the representation though made was rejected on 28/7/2020 and there is noting in file (paragraph 9). Whereas the order dtd. 17/2/2021 passed by Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA (refusing to review resumption order dtd. 7/9/2020) is different. The Metropolitan Commissioner rejected the prayer for review during pendency of this Writ Petition as per the order dtd. 17/2/2021. The said order is also challenged by carrying out amendment to this Petition. 11. Learned Advocate General invited our attention to provisions of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 and provisions of MMRDA, Act 1974. He has laid more emphasis on provisions of sec. 7 of 1995 Act. According to him there is a remedy of Appeal (before District Judge/Principal Judge, City Civil Court) against the order passed under sec. 4 or sec. 5 of 1955 Act. He wants to convey that the order of resumption dtd. 28/11/2018 is passed in exercise of the power under sec. 4 of 1955 Act. 12. The provisions about applicability of the provisions of 1955 Act to the premises held by the Authority MMRDA are very clear. Amendment to the term "Government premises" is given in sec. 2(b) of 1955 Act. Whereas sec. 3 of the MMRDA Act 1974 deals with establishment and constitution of the Authority called as Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority. It is constituted for Mumbai Metropolitan Region for the area specified in Schedule-I. Whereas sec. 31 of 1974 Act makes applicable the amendment mentioned in Schedule-II of 1974 Act to Metropolitan Authority. It is subject to modification. Schedule-II mentions 1955 Act. So there is no controversy about application of the provisions of 1955 Act to demised premises in question. 13. It is constituted for Mumbai Metropolitan Region for the area specified in Schedule-I. Whereas sec. 31 of 1974 Act makes applicable the amendment mentioned in Schedule-II of 1974 Act to Metropolitan Authority. It is subject to modification. Schedule-II mentions 1955 Act. So there is no controversy about application of the provisions of 1955 Act to demised premises in question. 13. On this background it will be material to refer to the orders challenged in this Petition. They are as follows:- (a) The letter/notice dtd. 7/9/2020, (b) The letter/notice dtd. 19/10/2020, (c) The order dtd. 17/2/2021 passed by the Metropolitan Commissioner (This prayer is by way of amendment). About the order dtd. 28/11/2018 14. So it is pertinent to note that the order of resumption dtd. 28/11/2018 is not challenged. There is no prayer sought for quashing the said order. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Talekar with all his articulation and experience submitted that the order dtd. 28/11/2018 has already lost its validity due to non implementation. He further submitted that in the communications dtd. 7/9/2020 and 19/10/2020 there is reference of the order dtd. 28/11/2018 and in fact it is misplaced one. It is for the reason that the order dtd. 28/11/2018 ceased to exist and it was never acted upon and it has lapsed by the passage of time. 15. Whereas according to the learned Advocate General, the said order was passed in exercise of power incorporated by way of clause (6) of the lease deed. He also submitted that the Petitioner (though challenged the order dtd. 28/11/2018 by way of earlier Writ Petition) has not taken appropriate proceedings as per liberty granted by the learned Single Judge and by not resorting to that remedy, the said order has attained finality and the Petitioner is not having any right to continue to be in possession of demised premises. 16. So from the above averments it is submitted that both the sides have different versions about the order dtd. 28/11/2018. The Petitioner's version is that the said order was not acted upon. Whereas the Respondent's version is that the said order has attained finality. We do not find any merit in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel Shri Talekar in that regard. Order ceased to exists under different circumstances. 28/11/2018. The Petitioner's version is that the said order was not acted upon. Whereas the Respondent's version is that the said order has attained finality. We do not find any merit in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel Shri Talekar in that regard. Order ceased to exists under different circumstances. Subsequent conduct of parties suggesting an intention different from the intention expressed in the earlier order or subject matter i.e. demised premises no more exists or there is amalgamation of the interest of rival parties may be few circumstances. Neither of them have occurred. 17. In fact the correspondence made subsequent to the order dtd. 28/11/2018 by the Respondents do suggest that they were interested in getting back the possession. On going through the correspondence in between the parties even after 28/11/2018, effect of such order has not lapsed. In fact we find merit in the submission advanced by the learned Advocate General that the said order has attained finality. 18. After granting liberty by learned Single Judge, the Petitioner has not approached the forum provided as per the provisions of 1955 Act. Probably the Petitioner is aware that the legality of said order cannot be challenged before this Court and that is why there is no prayer for setting aside the said order in present Writ Petition. The Petitioner has tried to cover up his intention not to challenge the said order and had chosen to contend that the said order has lapsed due to non implementation. We find no merit in it and we reject it. For this reason we are not going into issue about non maintainability of the Petition on account of availability of efficacious and alternate remedy. We restrict it to objection of maintainability of Writ Petition on account of disputed questions of facts. Disputed Questions of fact 19. Mr.Talekar, learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the Writ Petition is certainly maintainable. In support of that he relied upon the following judgments:- "(a) Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . (b) Harbanslal Sahania and Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 . (c) ABL International Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 . (d) Nareshbhai Bhagubahi and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . (b) Harbanslal Sahania and Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 . (c) ABL International Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 . (d) Nareshbhai Bhagubahi and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2019) 15 SCC 1 . (e) Unitech Limited and Ors. Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC online SC 99. 20. According to the learned Advocate General, even though the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised under certain circumstances, this is not a case for exercise of such jurisdiction. According to him, the disputed question of facts are involved and this is not a case wherein the dispute can be resolved only on the basis of reading documents, by taking its plain meaning. According to him for deciding the controversy, along with the documents, allegations and counter allegations needs to be considered and it can be gone into only in an appeal provided as per the provisions of 1955 Act. In order to buttress his submission, he relied upon the judgment in case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. M. K. Jose reported in (2015) 9 SCC 433 . Ratios in the Judgments 21. It will be material to consider the observations in above referred judgments prior to considering the facts before us. It is no doubt true that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised not only for issuing writs mentioned therein but it can be exercised also for other purposes. It can be used even when there is no grievance about infringement of fundamental rights. It is also true that it is a rule of self discipline imposed by the High Court on itself not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when alternate and efficacious remedies are available. At the same time it is also true that in spite of this self imposed rule, it does not mean that the High Court should not exercise the power under Article 226 even though such alternate remedy is available. 22. On cumulative reading of these judgments we may find that power under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised only under certain circumstances. 22. On cumulative reading of these judgments we may find that power under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised only under certain circumstances. When there is an issue about enforcement of the fundamental right or where there is grievance of violation of principles of natural justice or when the proceedings are without jurisdiction are some of the instances wherein the High Courts have exercised jurisdiction in spite of availability of alternate remedy. These are the observations in case of w hirlpool . That was a case wherein the opposition for registration of trademark was refused and the said decision was challenged before Delhi High Court. In this background an application for rectification of trademark which was registered was filed and the issue was whether the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction when remedy is available as per the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 23. On this background, when we have perused the pleadings we may find that there is no grievance of violation of the principles of fundamental rights. There is grievance about violation of principles of natural justice. When we applied this principle to the facts of the Writ Petition, we may find that two challenged notices are nothing but communication in furtherance of order of resumption dtd. 28/11/2018. The request made in these two challenged notices is nothing but reiteration of request made in the order of resumption. On perusal of the order of resumption we may find that it is based after giving more than sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to put forth their grievance. There is also reference of several hearings conducted in that order. As stated above the provisions of 1955 Act are applicable to the premises held by MMRDA. The order of resumption was issued by the Deputy Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA. 24. We need to deal with the objection about maintainability of the Writ Petition even though there is grievance about rights arising out of contract and even though the facts are disputed. There is one Authority relied upon by the Petitioner and Authority opining otherwise relied upon by the Respondents. In case of ABL International Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the Writ Petition is maintainable even though there is dispute arising out of contract of export. There was export of wheat to Kazaksthan and Kazaksthan Corporation assured to reimburse the loss if consideration is not paid. In case of ABL International Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the Writ Petition is maintainable even though there is dispute arising out of contract of export. There was export of wheat to Kazaksthan and Kazaksthan Corporation assured to reimburse the loss if consideration is not paid. Even though it is true but it is also important that after scrutiny of undisputed and disputed facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the disputed facts are very meagre. 25. Whereas in case of Unitech Ltd. (supra), the issue was performing the duties and obligation based on contract by instrumentality of State. The Petitioner contends that the State owes particular amount whereas defence was taken by the State about refund of principal and interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that public law remedy under Article 226 can be exercised particularly when action of the State is arbitrary, unfair and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 26. In case of M.K. Jose (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not approved the method adopted by the Division Bench thereby asking the Commissioner to inspect site and to give a report. It was an Intra Court Appeal. The dispute was in between the Road Contractor and the Government of Kerala. When there is need for adducing oral evidence, tendency to exercise writ jurisdiction was deprecated. 27. In the facts of this case if we consider above ratio, we may find that exercise of equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not totally excluded even when there is contractual dispute, however, exercise of jurisdiction depends upon several factors. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied the test of "what is extent of disputed facts, whether dispute can be resolved even if facts are disputed". 28. There is also test laid down that mere denial of the allegations does not make that fact disputed. Ultimately, the Court has to consider under what circumstances the facts are disputed by the alleged wrongdoer. If we apply these principles to the facts before us, we may find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not warrant exercise of equity jurisdiction. 29. The impugned notices are nothing but reiteration of demand made in the order of resumption. If we apply these principles to the facts before us, we may find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not warrant exercise of equity jurisdiction. 29. The impugned notices are nothing but reiteration of demand made in the order of resumption. There are allegations and counter allegations about breaches and compliance of those breaches, even the chart mentioning alleged breaches and compliance is produced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Talekar for the Petitioner. When we look at the details of chart, we may find that those areas are outside purview of exercise of equity jurisdiction. It does require evidence to be recorded. 30. The learned Advocate General also pointed out to us that the Petitioner has removed all articles from demised premises and the premises are empty and under the seal of the Respondents. We do find reference to this fact in the order dtd. 2/12/2021 wherein the Court has granted liberty to remove the articles. The fact of putting up the seal to demised premises is not disputed by the Petitioner. 31. No one can dispute about precarious situation faced by everyone due to Covid pandemic. By challenging the amount of arrears of rent, the Petitioner has also claimed exemption in rent amount due to Covid lockdown. That is one area of dispute. We may like to reproduce the averments in the affidavit in reply filed by the Officer of Respondent No.2 - MMRDA. It is in paragraph no.13 of the affidavit in reply affirmed on 2/5/2022. It is reproduced as follows:- "13. I say that the Petitioner appears to be relying upon the resolution passed by this Respondent, whereunder policy decision was taken to grant concession in payment of rent during the pandemic period. In this regard, it is clarified that the Petitioner will be entitled to get benefit of the said policy decision of this Respondent in terms of payment of rent on concessional rate as specified in the said policy from 25/03/2020 to 22/10/2020 i.e. the date on which the subject premises came to be sealed." 32. So wha t we feel is that when the Respondent had shown the entitlement to concession on the basis of policy then certainly they can approach the Respondents. 33. The order dtd. 17/2/2021 rejecting review is passed by the Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA. So wha t we feel is that when the Respondent had shown the entitlement to concession on the basis of policy then certainly they can approach the Respondents. 33. The order dtd. 17/2/2021 rejecting review is passed by the Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA. On reading it, we may find that the learned Metropolitan Commissioner has referred to all grievance of the Petitioner and refused to review the order dtd. 28/11/2018 and resumption order dtd. 7/9/2020. On prima facie reading, we may find that he has given categoric finding that not only there was default in payment of rent but there is complete non observance of essential and vital conditions of tender document and lease deed (paragraph 12). So this is not plain case of denial but the case which requires recording of detail evidence and responsibility of the Petitioner is more onerous than the Respondents to prove allegations. So we find no reason to interfere in the order dtd. 17/2/2021. The order of encashing bank guarantee is consequential order and in view of rejection of grievance of the Petitioner, this order also cannot be interfered with and lastly we may only add that the Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA to seek relaxation in amount of rent on account of covid lockdown. 34. On the basis of reference in paragraph 13 of the affidavit in reply, referred above, the Respondents are at liberty to consider such request if made. If such request is accepted the parties are at liberty to pay or refund the amount to each other after considering relaxation, if granted. 35. With these observations we are not inclined to entertain this Petition. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Interim Application No.437 of 2021 does not survive and is disposed of. 36. Parties to bear their own costs. 37. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for continuation of the interim relief granted earlier. In view of the above, the interim relief to continue for a further period of four weeks from today.