THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.5443 of 2010 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to strike down the first respondent’s endorsement dated 05.02.2010, as ultra vires and unconstitutional. The petitioner is a retail outlet of the second respondent. It was granted lease by the first respondent Municipality. By endorsement dated 05.02.2010 the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.23,78,190/- by the second respondent, on the ground that the lease deed erroneously mentions the total extent of land given on lease as 400 square yards when, in fact, the actual extent was 501.33 square yards. The 2nd respondent observed that as the petitioner was holding a larger extent of land than what was mentioned in the original lease agreement, he was liable to pay a higher lease amount, for the period from 01.04.2008 to 28.02.2010, i.e., for Rs.23,78,190/-. Sri M. Sivananda Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would raise several contentions including on the competence of the Standing Committee of the first respondent to unilaterally enhance the lease rent payable. He would also contend that the land was surveyed behind the petitioner’s back.. It is not in dispute that the lease agreement in question is not referable to any statutory provision. This Court would not ordinarily entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to resolve non-statutory contractual disputes. Issues relating to breach of contractual conditions and enforcement of the clauses of the lease agreement are all matters better left for examination by a competent Civil Court. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if it so chooses, to avail the remedy of a civil suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:09.03.2010 sj