Ramachandra Menon, J.
The issue involved in this case pertains to a lease arrangement executed between the appellant Church and the 1st respondent Petroleum Marketing Company.
2. The property was let out to the 1st respondent on the strength of a lease agreement executed decades back on 06.08.1973, which was originally for a period of 20 years. It is stated that the tenure of the lease was extended by two more decades as per Ext.P1 and said period expired on 06.08.2013. It is stated that the appellant Church was in dire need of property for their own purpose and accordingly, notice was issued to vacate the premises. However, banking upon a pre-exemption clause contained in the lease agreement, a reply was submitted by the 1st respondent, that they were ready to purchase the property. However, the Church insisted to have the property surrendered and sent notice, whereupon the 1st respondent, relying on sub-clause(b) of Clause III of Ext.P1 as aforesaid, approached the Sub Court, Kottayam by filing O.S. No.33 of 2014. This made the appellants to approach this Court by filing the writ petition with following prayers:
“i. Declare that the petitioners are entitled to get vacant possession of the property having 885 sq.meters in Sy.No.304/13 of Vadayar Village covered by Ext.P1 lease deed and that the first respondent has no vested right to continue the occupation and liable to hand over possession to the petitioner Church immediately.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to vacate the landed property and premises covered by Ext.P1 lease deed immediately and handover possession to the petitioner church.
iii. Direct the first respondent to pay due and increased rent to the petitioner church as is being paid to similar land lords from the retail outlet being maintained by the first respondent.
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the third respondent not to issue any No Objection Certificate as provided by the Petroleum Act and Rules in favour of the first respondent in order to continue the retail outlet any further.
v. Issue such other reliefs which may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the above writ petition.”
3. After hearing, the learned Single Judge found that, the rights and liberties of the parties concerned arising out of the lease arrangement had to be got adjudicated before the appropriate forum and accordingly, interference was declined and writ petition was dismissed making it clear that the writ petitioners could approach the Sub Court, Kottayam by filing a counter claim in O.S. No. 33 of 2014 or file a separate Suit for getting recovery of possession. This made the writ petitioners to approach this Court by filing the above Writ Appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. On going through the pleadings, this Court finds that, the verdict passed by learned Single Judge does not call for any interference, in so far as the observation that the proper forum is the civil court is perfectly within four walls of law. This is more so, since this is a matter where, the issue has to be adjudicated on the basis of the specific pleadings and the evidence to be let in, which cannot be pursued before this Court by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants however makes a reference to the observations made by learned Single Judge in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment and submits that these observations virtually curtail the rights and liberties of the appellants. We make it clear that the observations made by learned Single Judge are only in the context of arriving at a finding whether the matter should be considered by this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and nothing more. It is always open for the parties concerned to ventilate their grievances before the competent civil court and the observations of the learned Single Judge will not stand in their way in this regard. Interference is declined and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/10/06