WP(C) 3130/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the pet itioner. The case, as projected in this Writ Petition is that the petitioner r ented a R.C.C. building having two floors to the State Bank of India on monthly basis and the terms of the agreement between the landlady/petitioner and tenant/ SBI were incorporated in a written lease agreement dated 15.10.2008(Annexure-18) . The period of lease is fixed for 5 years with further covenant of extension fo r another period of 5 years at the option of the tenant. In order to make the bu ilding suitable for letting out to the tenant the landlady made substantial inve stment, but before expiry of the term of lease, the tenant has again invited off er for accommodation of their offices which is published in local daily on 23.4. 2010. Describing the said offer as on NIT, the landlady has filed this Writ Peti tion contending that during the existence of lease period the Bank is not legall y authorized to invite such offer which indicate that the tenant/Bank has decide d to vacate the rented building, before expiry of the period of lease. The doctr ine of promissory estoppel has been pressed into service by Mr. Choudhury, apart from the challenge on the ground of unfairness, in assailing the offer so invit ed by the Bank. I have considered the submission of the learned senior counsel. Admittedly the jural relationship between the parties is landlady and tenant. Such a relationship, incidence and respective rights and liabilities of the landlady and tenant is regulated and guided by a special local statute, viz. The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Although there is a written agr eement of lease of tenanted building for a period of 5 years, the said lease dee d (Annexure - 18) is not a registered one and such a deed extending for more tha n one year is a compulsorily resistable document. In the absence of such regist ration the agreement of tenancy is required to be construed as monthly tenancy w hich means that the terms such as rent and other covenants would be enforceable only for a month. Admittedly the relationship between the petitioner and the Bank is that of landlord and tenant which is culminated by a lease agreement(Annexure- B) as indicated above. The said lease agreement is to be construed as agreement on a m onthly tenancy in the absence of registration as required under the Registration Act. It appears that the tenant/Bank has decided to leave the premises and in t he process if the petitioner incur any loss i.e. for making investment in the bu ilding, which would undoubtedly add to the value of the property the petitioner /landlady would be entitled to approach the civil court for necessary compensati on. The decision of the Bank to leave the premises cannot be interfered with by the court in exercise of power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In s uch circumstances, the case do not attract the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and it is a dispute between landlady and tenant, pure and simple. In view of the above discussions, I do not consider that the extraord inary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner in assailing the action of her tenant and hence the Writ Petitio n stands dismissed. Dismissal of the Writ Petition, however would not stand as b ar on the maintainability of the any civil litigation, if initiated by the petit ioner.