ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the continued occupation and retention of physical possession of petition schedule property admeasuring 2500 square yards in Survey No. 101/A/6/1/A situated at Katedhan Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by Respondents 2 and 3, pursuant to a registered Lease Deed dated 21.03.2005, despite expiry of lease period by efflux of time on 21.03.2025. 2. The grievance of Petitioner is that even after issuance of repeated representations and legal notices dated 24.01.2024, 05.09.2024, 23.12.2024 and a further representation dated 11.03.2025, Respondent – Indian Oil Corporation failed to vacate the leased premises, failed to remove its movable installations and continues to occupy the property unlawfully, thereby depriving Petitioner of his right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution. 2.1. Petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property having lawfully acquired the same under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5161 of 2003 and his name was mutated in the revenue records and other relevant records maintained by the competent authorities, and that he has been in peaceful ownership and enjoyment of the said property. In his capacity as owner, he executed a registered Lease Deed dated 21.03.2005 in favour of IBP Company Limited, a Government of India undertaking, leasing out the said land for the specific purpose of establishing, erecting, and operating a petrol and high speed diesel retail outlet, servicing and lubricating station, and for storage and use of petroleum products under the name and style of "GYS Reddy Filling Station." The lease included permission to install canopies, underground tanks, dispensing units, plant and machinery, and other movable installations necessary for the said commercial activity. 2.2. It is the specific and emphatic case of Petitioner that under the terms and recitals of the registered Lease Deed, lease tenure was expressly fixed for a period of 20 years commencing from 21.03.2005 and expiring by efflux of time on 21.03.2025. The Lease Deed provided only an option for renewal for a further period of five years, subject to mutual consent and agreement of both the parties, and that such renewal was neither automatic nor unilateral. According to Petitioner, renewal clause was entirely dependent upon the willingness and consent of the lessor, and the lessee had no vested or enforceable right to claim extension as a matter of course. 2.3. According to Petitioner, renewal clause was entirely dependent upon the willingness and consent of the lessor, and the lessee had no vested or enforceable right to claim extension as a matter of course. 2.3. It is asserted that petitioner has unequivocally expressed his unwillingness to renew or extend the lease beyond the agreed period of 20 years and that he has, well in advance of the expiry of the lease, issued repeated representations and legal notices calling upon the lessee to vacate the leased premises and hand over peaceful physical possession upon expiry of lease term. Petitioner issued notices dated 24.01.2024, 05.09.2024 and 23.12 2024, followed by representation dated 11.03.2025 and a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, clearly communicating his intention not to renew the lease and demanding surrender of possession. IBP Company Limited was subsequently merged with and taken over by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking, and that Respondents 2 and 3 stepped into the shoes of the original lessee and continued operations under the same lease and on the same terms and conditions. Such merger or takeover does not in any manner enlarge or alter the leasehold rights and that Respondents 2 and 3 are bound by the same contractual limitations, including fixed tenure of the lease. 2.4. According to Petitioner, upon expiry of lease on 21.03.2025, Respondent Corporation ceased to have any lawful right, title, or interest in the petition schedule property. Despite repeated demands and notices, Respondent Corporation failed and neglected to vacate the premises and continued to retain physical possession along with its movable installations, tanks, dispensing units, and other equipment. Petitioner further alleges that Respondent Corporation initially failed to issue any reply to the notices demanding vacation and that even thereafter, Respondents deliberately avoided vacating the premises. Such continued retention of possession amounts to arbitrary deprivation of property, infringing his constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution and is also violative of Articles 14 and 21 inasmuch as it is arbitrary, unreasonable and lacking any authority of law. 2.5. It is also contended by Petitioner that Respondent Corporation failed to pay rent strictly in accordance with the terms of the Lease Deed and has been paying a lesser amount than what was contractually agreed upon. 2.5. It is also contended by Petitioner that Respondent Corporation failed to pay rent strictly in accordance with the terms of the Lease Deed and has been paying a lesser amount than what was contractually agreed upon. Respondents are liable to pay the agreed rent, along with mesne profits for unauthorized occupation after expiry of the lease, as well as property tax, statutory charges, and other dues till the date of actual vacation and delivery of possession. Petitioner further states that the dealership granted in his favour stood terminated on 19.04.2023, subsequent to such termination, there is no subsisting dealership relationship that could justify the continued commercial operation of the petroleum outlet from the leased premises. 2.6. On the aforesaid grounds, Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondents to vacate and hand over peaceful physical possession of the petition schedule property, to remove their movable installations, to suspend the petroleum outlet licence issued in respect of the said premises under Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and to direct cessation of all petroleum retail operations from the leased premises. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a detailed counter denying the allegations, assertions, and averments made by the Petitioner in the writ affidavit. At the outset, it is contended that the entire Writ Petition is founded on a fundamental misreading and misrepresentation of the terms and recitals of the registered Lease Deed dated 21.03.2005. The Lease Deed unequivocally stipulates a lease period of 25 years and not 20 years as alleged by Petitioner. As per the express recitals contained in the Lease Deed, the lease term was agreed for a total period of 25 years, commencing either from 31.03.2005 or from the date of commissioning of the retail outlet, whichever is later. On such reckoning, Respondents assert that lease remains valid and subsisting till March 2030. 3.1. It is the specific case of Respondents that Petitioner has approached this Court by selectively relying upon certain portions of the Lease Deed while deliberately ignoring and suppressing the express recital which provides for a lease tenure of 25 years. Lease Deed must be read as a whole and that Petitioner cannot be permitted to pick and choose clauses to suit his convenience and advance an untenable claim for eviction during the subsistence of a valid lease. Lease Deed must be read as a whole and that Petitioner cannot be permitted to pick and choose clauses to suit his convenience and advance an untenable claim for eviction during the subsistence of a valid lease. Respondents further contend that lease, being a registered instrument executed with full knowledge and consent of both parties, cannot be unilaterally terminated by Petitioner. Any attempt to seek eviction of Respondent Corporation prior to expiry of the agreed lease term is in clear breach of the contractual obligations and contrary to the express terms of the Lease Deed. So long as the lease remains valid, Petitioner has no enforceable right to seek recovery of possession. 3.2. It is further submitted that Corporation has scrupulously complied with all the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed. The agreed monthly rent at the inception of the lease was Rs.22,000/- with an enhancement of 15% every five years, and Corporation has been regularly paying rent along with applicable increments. There has been no default, breach, or violation of any lease condition on the part of Respondents which could justify eviction or termination of the lease. The Writ Petition is premature, misconceived and not maintainable in law. The dispute raised by Petitioner pertains purely to enforcement and interpretation of contractual rights arising out of a registered Lease Deed and that such disputes fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the civil Court. According to Respondents, if Petitioner seeks determination, cancellation or enforcement of lease, appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil forum and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3.3. Respondents deny all allegations of arbitrariness, mala fides, illegality, or violation of constitutional rights. It is specifically contended that Article 300A of the Constitution cannot be invoked to defeat or override contractual obligations voluntarily undertaken by Petitioner under a registered Lease Deed. Their possession of the premises is lawful, authorized, and protected under the subsisting lease, therefore it cannot be characterized as deprivation of property without authority of law. 3.4. It is further contended that the representation dated 11.03.2025 submitted by Petitioner was duly examined and disposed of by the Corporation by a reasoned reply dated 18.03.2025, wherein lease tenure was clearly explained as extending up to March 2030 and Petitioner's demand for vacating the premises was expressly rejected on that basis. Having responded to the representation, no grievance survives on that score. 4. Having responded to the representation, no grievance survives on that score. 4. In the rejoinder affidavit, Petitioner reiterates and reaffirms that the actual lease tenure agreed between the parties under the registered Lease Deed dated 21.03.2005 was only for 20 years and not 25 years as asserted by the Respondents. Lease Deed, when read in its entirety, clearly reflects a fixed lease period of 20 years, with a further option for renewal of five years only on mutually-agreed terms and conditions, and not as an automatic or unilateral extension in favour of the lessee. 4.1. Petitioner asserts that Respondents have deliberately and selectively relied upon one recital in the Lease Deed to project the lease tenure as 25 years, while consciously ignoring and suppressing other clauses and recitals which explicitly refer to the lease period as 20 years with a conditional renewal. According to Petitioner, such selective interpretation amounts to distortion of the contractual terms and is contrary to the settled principle that a lease deed must be construed as a whole to ascertain the true intention of the parties. Respondent Corporation has, in its own correspondence and communications placed on record, acknowledged that lease was valid only till March 2025 and that any continuation beyond the said date would be subject to renewal on mutually agreed terms. Such admissions on the part of Respondents clearly belie the stand now taken in the counter and reinforce Petitioner's case that there was no automatic extension of the lease beyond the original term. 4.2. Petitioner emphatically contends that renewal clause contained in the Lease Deed does not confer any vested or enforceable right upon Respondents to demand extension of lease as a matter of course. Renewal is purely at the discretion of the lessor and subject to his consent, and that Respondents cannot compel renewal or continue in possession against the express will of Petitioner. It is reiterated that he has clearly and unequivocally communicated his unwillingness to renew the lease and has demanded vacant possession upon expiry of the lease term 4.3. Petitioner further denies Respondents 'assertion that rent has been paid strictly in accordance with the terms of the Lease Deed. From the inception, Corporation has been paying a lesser amount than the agreed rent and the claim of regular payment with proper enhancement is incorrect. Such underpayment further disentitles Respondents from claiming equitable relief or continuation of possession. Petitioner further denies Respondents 'assertion that rent has been paid strictly in accordance with the terms of the Lease Deed. From the inception, Corporation has been paying a lesser amount than the agreed rent and the claim of regular payment with proper enhancement is incorrect. Such underpayment further disentitles Respondents from claiming equitable relief or continuation of possession. Upon expiry of lease period by efflux of time, and in the absence of any renewal by mutual consent, Respondents’ status is reduced to that of tenants holding over without consent. Such continued occupation is unauthorized and does not confer any legal right to remain in possession of the petition schedule property. Accordingly, Petitioner states that Respondents have no lawful authority to continue in possession of the leased premises after March 2025 and their continued occupation is wholly illegal and contrary to the terms of the Lease Deed. 5. Heard Sri G. Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3. 6. The principal controversy for consideration is with regard to the true tenure of the lease created under the registered Lease Deed dated 21.03.2005 and consequentially, whether Respondent Corporation is entitled to continue in possession of petition schedule property beyond March 2025. 7. Petitioner asserts that lease was expressly granted for 20 years commencing from 21.03.2005 and expiring by efflux of time on 21.03.2025, with a further renewal of five years only on mutually agreed terms. According to him, renewal clause does not confer any automatic or unilateral right upon the lessee and continuation beyond the original term is dependent entirely upon the consent of the lessor, which has been expressly refused. On the other hand, Respondents contend that Lease Deed clearly stipulates lease period of 25 years, commencing from 31.03.2005 or from the date of commissioning of the retail outlet, whichever is later, and lease remains valid till March 2030. It is the case of Respondents that Petitioner had selectively relied upon certain recitals while ignoring other express clauses which, according to them, unequivocally provide for a lease tenure of 25 years 8. A perusal of the Lease Deed, as referred to by both the parties, indicates that the document contains multiple recitals touching upon the lease tenure. It is the case of Respondents that Petitioner had selectively relied upon certain recitals while ignoring other express clauses which, according to them, unequivocally provide for a lease tenure of 25 years 8. A perusal of the Lease Deed, as referred to by both the parties, indicates that the document contains multiple recitals touching upon the lease tenure. One set of clauses refers to a lease period of 20 years with a provision for renewal for a further period of five years on mutually agreed terms, while another recital refers to a total period of 25 years. Existence of such clauses has led to divergent interpretations by the parties, each asserting that the Lease Deed supports their respective stand. It is a settled principle of law that a registered lease deed must be read as a whole, and no single clause can be read in isolation while ignoring other parts of the document. The intention of the parties must be gathered from the entirety of the document, harmonizing all clauses, and giving effect to each recital to the extent possible. Where the terms of a lease deed are capable of more than one interpretation, and where the intention of the parties is disputed, such interpretation ordinarily involves examination of the document in detail, along with surrounding circumstances, correspondence between the parties, and conduct during the subsistence of the lease. 9. In the present case, Petitioner relies upon certain clauses and recitals to contend that lease expired in March 2025 and that renewal was optional and subject to his consent. Respondents, on the other hand, rely upon the other recitals to contend that lease is for a continuous period of 25 years and subsists till March 2030. Both sides have placed reliance on the same Lease Deed but have drawn different conclusions as to its legal effect. This Court notes that resolution of such a dispute would necessarily require detailed examination of the Lease Deed in its entirety, including sequencing of clauses, operative portions, renewal provisions, and the manner in which lease term was intended to operate. Such an exercise would also involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact, including whether renewal clause was intended to operate automatically or only upon mutual consent, and whether the conduct and correspondence of the parties support one interpretation over the other. 10. Such an exercise would also involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact, including whether renewal clause was intended to operate automatically or only upon mutual consent, and whether the conduct and correspondence of the parties support one interpretation over the other. 10. It is to be noted, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is primarily meant to address issues of public law, jurisdictional errors and violations of statutory or constitutional duties. It is not ordinarily invoked for adjudication of purely contractual disputes involving interpretation of lease deeds, especially where the parties are at variance on material facts and where the dispute centers around enforcement of contractual rights flowing from a registered instrument. So long as the lease tenure itself is disputed and requires authoritative interpretation, this Court cannot, in writ proceedings, conclusively determine whether Respondent Corporation's possession after March 2025 is lawful or unlawful. Such determination is a foundational issue which must be adjudicated by a competent civil Court, where evidence can be led, lease deed can be interpreted comprehensively and rival claims can be conclusively resolved. 11. This Court, therefore, finds that the dispute regarding lease tenure, whether it expired in March 2025 as contended by Petitioner or continues till March 2030 as contended by Respondents, raises serious and substantial questions of contractual interpretation which are not amenable to summary adjudication in writ proceedings and it is within the exclusive domain of a competent civil Court. In view of existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, and having regard to the settled principle that contractual disputes are not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. Writ Petition therefore, is dismissed leaving it open to Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competent civil court in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, and all issues are left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum. No costs. 13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.