1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is a subsidiary of National Textile Corporation and Respondent 1 is the landlord of the suit premises. Respondent 2 is the tenant of Respondent 1 in respect of suit office premises and the petitioner is the sole tenant in respect of part of the suit office premises. That during the pendency of the suit, Respondent 2 entered into consent terms with Respondent 1 on 6-9-1999 under which he agreed to hand over to Respondent 1 7800 square feet area of the suit office premises. In the consent terms it is recorded that the area in occupation of the petitioner is only 3617 square feet out of the total area of 11, 417 square feet. This part of the consent terms is the subject-matter of the challenge in this petition.

3. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the said consent terms were inter se between Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 and the petitioner was not a party to the said consent terms and hence, the same were not binding. However, it seems the petitioner chose the wrong forum to challenge this through writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which in our considered opinion was misconceived and not the proper forum. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that in fact fraud was committed as against the petitioner by both Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 by including the area in possession of the petitioner without bringing the petitioner as a party to the said consent terms. The question of fraud and to what extent the area covered by the consent terms includes the area in possession of the petitioner cannot be gone into in writ proceedings. This is basically a question of facts. The proper course open to the petitioner was to have moved under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, in view of the fact that he is actually dispossessed from the area, the submission is that as this remedy is not available, and he was left with no other remedy, he filed the writ petition. The submission for the respondents is that they are not actually dispossessed, but it is again a matter of dispute, which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. In view of the facts of this case the remedy to the petitioner is to seek relief through a suit.

4. Accordingly, we hold that proceedings taken through writ petition are misconceived. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to take such proceedings as advised in accordance with law. It is also made clear that any observation made by the courts below will be without prejudice to the proceedings if taken by the petitioner.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the special leave petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.