Swatanter Kumar, C.J.
1. The Petitioner, a distributor of Bharat Petroleum Company Limited engaged in the business of distribution and sale of Liquid Petroleum Gas cylinders and other allied products, claims that they provide service to approximately 12,000 consumers in the JuhuVile Parle Development Scheme. In the year 1995, the Petitioner took on lease plot No. 70D at JuhuVile Parle Bus Station Circle near Bhaskar Garage, Juhu, Mumbai admeasuring about 300 sq. mtrs. belonging to the Respondent. After negotiations, vide letter No. JVPD/Gen/153/1829/BBL dated 10th April 1995, the Petitioner was allotted lease of the said plot for the purpose indicated in the said letter of lease. In furtherance to the said lease, the Petitioner paid the charges. Vide letter dated 25th April 1995 the Petitioner, upon making payment of Rs. 2,70,550/was called upon to take possession of the said plot. The possession of the said plot was taken by the Petitioner on 15th May 1995. According to the Petitioner, this continued for a considerable time and suddenly vide letter dated 18th September 2008 the Respondent informed the Petitioner that they would take possession of the premises within three days from the receipt of the said letter. It was further stated in the said letter dated if the Petitioner did not vacate the premises within three days of the receipt of the said letter, the Respondent would take action for recovery on or about 22nd September 2008. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 19th September 2008, asked the Respondent to withdraw their letter stating that there was no question of they vacating the premises in question. The Petitioner felt aggrieved by this letter dated 18th September 2008 and resultantly has challenged the correctness and validity of the said letter in the present Writ Petition.
2. The Respondent filed a short reply affidavit at the admission stage and has taken up a stand that no lease deed was executed in favour of the Petitioner. It was only an allotment for a limited period of eleven months with effect from 10th April 1995. The said premises was only for storage of gas cylinders. The allotment was not extended beyond the period of eleven months. The Petitioner did not pay the rent and charges right from the year 1996 till 2006. However, after a notice was issued on 7th November 2006, the Petitioner paid the principal amount demanded but still have not paid the interest for the period of default which comes to Rs. 5,13,000/. The Respondent had cancelled the temporary allotment and had decided to take back possession of the plot. Accordingly, a notice was served on 25th September 2006 and as the Petitioner failed to give back the possession of the plot in question, the Respondent now want to take possession of the said plot, in furtherance to the notice dated 18th September 2008, as the Petitioner is a trespasser and has no right in the property in question.
3. Separate affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent by the Deputy Engineer, Bandra Division where it is stated that the possession of the property i.e. of the entire plot was taken on 22nd September 2008 at 11.15 p.m. and a panchanama dated 22nd September 2008 was also recorded in that respect. It is further stated that after the Respondent had taken possession, the Petitioner on or about 23rd September 2008 trespassed on the said plot of land by breaking open the sealed lock fixed on the gate by the Respondent and even forcibly removed the security personnel deputed by the Respondent to protect the said property. A report in that regard has also been lodged with the Senior Inspector of Police, D.N. Nagar Police Station.
4. In the rejoinder, the Petitioner has reiterated the stand taken in the Petition and had also made a mention of an Order passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 10th September 2004 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2426 of 2004 and of an Appeal filed before the Additional District Deputy Collector, Mumbai against the order of revenue authorities dated 26th December 2003 assessing the charges and penalty payable by the Petitioner.
5. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that the allotment of the plot in question was made in favour of the Petitioner for a limited period of eleven months. In terms of the letter of allotment, it was specifically stipulated that the agency (Petitioner) has no right and will not establish any right on the land and they shall not raise any construction/any permanent structure on the premises in question. Thus, it is not a lease of the plot in question that has been executed in favour of the Petitioner. It was simply a temporary allotment limited for a period of eleven months that too with a clear restricted right.
6. It is hardly in dispute that the Petitioner right from 1996 to 2006, did not pay the charges and it was only after a notice was served and proceedings were initiated that the payment was made by the Petitioner that too without any interest, as claimed by the Respondent. Even a sum of more than Rs. 5,00,000/is due on that account. It is for the Petitioner to show that the Petitioner has some distinct right in the property in question which it was granted and in law it is entitled to protection thereof. In the present case, right from 1996, after the lapse of eleven months, the Petitioner has no right whatsoever to remain in possession of the plot in question. Furthermore, the conduct of the Petitioner shows that the Petitioner is a rank trespasser in the property in question. The possession of the property was taken on 22nd September 2008 and the Respondent had even deployed their security persons on the property in question who were forcibly dispossessed by the Petitioner and the Petitioner reentered upon the property on 23rd September 2008. In other words, the Petitioner have become a rank trespasser by reentering into possession unauthorizedly after they were dispossessed from the property in question. The order of the Division Bench dated 10th September 2004 and the Appeal filed under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code, 1966 has no bearing on the controversy before us as that matter strictly relates to imposition of the penalty and other charges for the period stated in those proceedings. The Division Bench in that Writ Petition also did not accept that the Petitioner was having any interest in the property. All that was stated in the judgment of this Court was that a contention had been raised before them that such demand should be raised only by that Respondent and not Respondent No. 2. Noticing the contention the Court directed expeditious hearing of the Appeal by the concerned authority. The Petitioner thus cannot take any advantage from the said order. We may notice that even in the letter dated 18th September 2008 it had been stated that notice had been served to the Petitioner even on earlier occasion. The conduct of the Petitioner in the present case is such that it could disentitle the Petitioner from claiming any relief under extra ordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled principle of law that one who claims equity must do equity. The Petitioner must come to the Court with clean hands. In the Petition before us the Petitioner at no point of time brought to the notice of the Court that the Petitioner had actually been dispossessed on 22nd September 2008. Withholding of this material facts by the Petitioner during the hearing of the case and even prior thereto is again a matter which would disentitle the Petitioner from claiming relief in this proceedings. Reference can be made to the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ms Jayshree Zine and Ors. v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr. 2008 (6) M. L.J. 302 which reads as under:. It is unfair for the candidate to make a false averment in the application form and then to claim the equitable relief on such falsehood. This conduct of the applicants, in our considered view, disentitles them from claiming any relief in the present petition. It is a settled principle of law that one who claims any equitable relief must come to the court with a clean hands and true facts. Attempt to misrepresent the facts and/or to claim any relief on the basis of falsehood will disentitle the petitioners from claiming equitable reliefs.
7. After the Petitioner was dispossessed on 22nd September 2008, the Petitioner forcibly entered upon the property on 23rd September 2008, as claimed by the Respondent, the Petitioner would still remain as a rank trespasser and would have no right in the property in question. Even from that point of view, the Petitioner having no interest in the property, except trespassing, cannot be protected by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
8. Though the observations made have no strict application to the facts and circumstances of the case, it needs to be noticed that the Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Bilaney and Anr. v. Fali Rustomji Kumana : (2005)7SCC682 , took the view that a rank trespasser is not entitled to protection in law and could even be dispossessed in future.
9. For the reasons aforestated, we find no merits in this Writ Petition. The same is dismissed. However, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.