Kiran Kumari vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's offer was considered, but the respondents chose a different location, which they deemed better, possibly at a higher rent. The Court found no evidence of unfair discrimination, irrationality, or illogical action on the part of the respondents, stating that their choice of premises aligns with prevalent commercial practices. The Court further held that the selection of premises for housing an office is solely within the discretion of the tenant, not the landlord. Consequently, the Court ruled that no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the tenant to rent the premises of any particular landlord. The petition was found to be devoid of merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Kiran Kumari, had leased her premises to the respondent (Central Goods and Service Tax) for housing their office. A lease agreement was in place since November 16, 2018. The respondent informed the petitioner in July 2022 that they would vacate the premises by August 31, 2022. Subsequently, the respondent issued a tender in October 2022 inviting offers for new premises. The petitioner's grievance is that her offer was not considered. The Court notes that the offer was considered, but the respondents selected a different location, potentially at a higher rate, deeming it a better option. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to rent her premises.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents unfairly discriminated against the petitioner by not considering her offer for renting premises for their office, thereby acting irrationally or illogically? 2. Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent tenant to rent the premises of a particular landlord? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that her offer was not considered by the respondents when they issued a tender for new office premises, despite her existing tenancy. She implicitly argued that this non-consideration constituted unfair discrimination. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through their actions and the Court's observations, indicated that the petitioner's offer was indeed considered. They asserted that they chose a different location based on their assessment of suitability, which is a matter of their discretion as tenants. They also contended that the choice of premises is solely the tenant's discretion and not that of the landlord, and therefore, no mandamus can be issued to compel them to rent specific premises.