1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.339 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1 OF 1989 IN PETITON NO.637 OF 1988 Ramesh Maganlal Haria .. Appellant V/s Laxmi Jivraj Shah .. Respondent Mr.S.M.Khaire for the Appellant. Mr.V.B.Amin i/by M/s.B.Amin & Co.for the Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 26th July, 2011. P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the Appellant challenges order dated 29.04.2008 passed in Suit No.1 of 1989 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Petition No.637 of 1988 was filed by the present Appellant for the Letters of Administration to the property and credits of one Lalji Ravji Haria, who died intestate on 14.04.1980. On caveat being filed, that petition was converted as a civil suit and it was registered as Suit No.1 of 1989. 2. Petitioner is the grand son of deceased Lalji, whereas Defendant is the daughter of deceased Lalji. Learned Single Judge has 2 dismissed the suit and declined to grant Letters of Administration in favour of the Appellant on the ground that he is guilty of suppressing the properties of the deceased while filing the petition for Letters of Administration. Learned Single Judge has held that the Appellant has suppressed the properties with malafide intention and it is not a fit case where the learned Single Judge should exercise his discretion for grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the Appellant. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant. It is clear from the record that so far as immovable property is concerned, there are three immovable properties left behind by the deceased. One was Shop No.4. The other was immovable property at Kutch and the third was a transit accommodation which the deceased was occupying as he was entitled to an accommodation in a building which was being constructed. 4. So far as transit accommodation is concerned, it was in possession of the Defendant. At the time when the petition for Letters of Administration was filed in the year 1988 Shop No.4 was in possession of the Appellant, and the property at Kutch was not in anybody’s possession. After the Defendant filed 3 caveat and pointed out that the Appellant has deliberately avoided to mention two properties viz. Shop No.4 and the property at Kutch, the Appellant amended the petition and included those properties. The explanation given by him for not including those properties in the petition, as originally filed, was that he did not include the shop because the property was owned by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the deceased was holding that property as a tenant thereof and he was told that there cannot be Letters of Administration for the tenanted property as succession to the tenanted property is governed by the Rent Act. So far as Kutch property is concerned, his defence was that he was not aware of the existence of that property. 5. So far as the defence raised by the Appellant in relation to the shop is concerned, it is incapable of being accepted because if the property is owned by the Bombay Municipal Corporation the Rent Act will not apply and there is no question of succession being governed by the Rent Act. It is obvious that the Appellant was in possession of the shop and he got possession after Lalji died in the year 1980, and in the year 1988 when he filed the petition he was already in possession of the shop for about eight 4 years and he had also got his name mutated as heir of Lalji in the record of the Corporation. Therefore, reason why the Appellant did not mention that property is obvious. 6. So far as the property in Kutch is concerned, it was pointed out to us by the learned counsel appearing for the Defendant that in the cross examination, the appellant has admitted that he had visited the property at Kutch twice and that he had visited the property at Kutch even after death of Lalji. Thus, his case that he was not aware of existence of the property or that he was not aware that it was owned by his grandfather is incapable of being accepted. 7. Thus the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the Appellant did not approach the Court with clean hands is not capable of being disturbed, and if the learned Judge was right in saying that the Appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands, the decision of the learned Single Judge in not exercising his discretion in favour of the Appellant also cannot be faulted. In the result, appeal fails and same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)