WP(C) 2715/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties , this writ petition is bein g disposed of at the admission stage itself. I have heard Mr. J.I.Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petition er , Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos 2 and 3 as well as Smti. H.M.Phukan, learned Junior Govt Advocate for the respondent No.1 This writ petition U/A. 226 of the Constitution of India has be en filed challenging the notice dated 21.04.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 a sking the petitioner to vacate the leased property i.e shop house. Essentially the dispute between the parties relates to tenancy of a shop room. The petition er is the tenant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the lessors. The shop room was leased in the year 1999 for a period of 10 years. Although the Deed of Lease was executed on 16.5.1999 but the same was registered on 7.6.2000. Besides th is, the advance payment was also made much after the execution of the lease deed and the possession of the shop was hand over to the petitioner much later. In this way it is a debatable issue as to when the tenancy actually came into fo rce. It is the settled position of law that the High Court in its ext ra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ventu re to determine the disputed questions of facts. Besides this, there is also a dispute whether the petitioner has made excess payment of rent or is there any arrear payment of rent. Above all, it would not be wise to entertain the writ petition since it is arising out of a concluded contract which is again a non-s tatutory one. In the midst of the argument, Mr. N.Dutta, learned Senior counse l for the Co-operative Society submitted that since the period of lease has expi red, the Cooperative Society has already called tenders to let out the shop hou se afresh to fetch market rate of rent prevailing now. If that is the only mo tto to get the petitioner vacated from the leased shop room, there is still s cope for negotiation between the lessor and the sitting lessee. At this stage Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to accept the highest rent o ffered by the prospective lessees, pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.7.2009. Considering all aspects in its entirety, I am not inclined to en tertain this writ petition. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to negot iate the terms and conditions, including the amount of the rent with the lessor (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). For this purpose, the petitioner is given 2 months t ime. If the negotiation fails, both the parties shall be at liberty to proceed i n accordance with the terms and conditions of the tenancy and also in accordance with law. It is also made clear that during the period of 2(two) months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to run his business from the leased premises, subject to payment of rent. At the same time, the respondents shall also be at liberty to open the tenders for the purpose of negotiation with the petitione r. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition s tands disposed of.