IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15144 of 2004 Between: L. Venugopal & others. … Petitioners AND The Joint Collector, Medak District/Chairman, Medak Co-op., Marketing Society Limited, Medak District, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P. Laxma Reddy for Sri Thoom Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Cooperation Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P.Lingeshwar Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15144 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to evict the petitioners from their respective shops summarily without following due process of law by issuing notices dated 16.08.2004 and in seeking to conduct open auction of the shops, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners have come into occupation of mulgies constructed over the property belonging to respondent No.2 Society. While the petitioners claim that construction of mulgies was entrusted to them by respondent No.2 due to paucity of funds and that they have constructed the same from the basement level, it is the case of respondent No.2, as reﬂected from its counter-aﬃdavit, that the Society has constructed shops for the purpose of marketing agriculture and allied products and that due to paucity of funds, the marketing was not conducted and the shops were given to the petitioners on monthly rental basis. It is also the case of respondent No.2 that some of the petitioners represented before the Managing Committee of respondent No.2 Society to give open space on lease basis and that accepting the said request, the Managing Committee gave plots on lease over which the petitioners constructed their shops. It is further stated that the lease period was completed in respect of petitioner Nos.6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 and petitioner Nos.5 and 12 have not entered into any agreement with respondent No.2 Society. Respondent No.2 further stated that the lease period in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 was to expire by November, 2006 and in respect of petitioner No.9 lease was scheduled to expire in June, 2006. Petitioner Nos.5, 7, 10, 12 and 14 are in arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.8,050/-, Rs.2,100/-, Rs.4,800/-, Rs.11,550/- and Rs.3,840/- respectively as on 31.08.2004. It is further stated that as respondent No.2 Society decided to dispose of the property for clearing the Government dues, the leases of the shops were not renewed and the impugned notices were issued calling upon the petitioners to vacate the mulgies in their respective occupation. At the hearing, Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notices issued by respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, even if the lease period expired, respondent No.2 can only seek eviction of the petitioners in accordance with law and that it has no power to issue notices and evict the petitioners. The petitioners ﬁled a copy of the agreement, which is similar in terms with the individual agreements entered into by them with respondent No.2. Clause 13 of the agreement inter alia provides that after expiry of the period of eight years (i.e., “March 2005”), the lessee has no right to keep the shop in his possession and he shall handover possession of the mulgi to respondent No.2. It is also agreed that respondent No.2 shall give two months’ advance notice for seeking vacation of the premises after eight years. The abovementioned terms of the agreement clearly indicate that the agreement was only for a period of eight years and that the petitioners agreed to voluntarily handover possession on the expiry of eight years. Respondent No.2 is also under the obligation to give two months’ advance notice for vacation of the premises by the petitioners. Thus, the impugned notices given to the petitioners are traceable to the speciﬁc term of the agreement and therefore I do not ﬁnd any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 has no power or jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices. Exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is essentially discretionary in nature. Such a jurisdiction is not exercised in favour of the persons, who do not come to the Court with clean hands. The petitioners, having entered into agreements on their own volition, wherein they have unequivocally undertaken to handover possession of the mulgies on the expiry of the lease period, are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by raising specious pleas such as lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No.2 to take over possession of the property without taking recourse to the legal process. As the petitioners themselves have authorized respondent No.2 to give a notice, it lies ill in their mouth to contend that the impugned notices are without jurisdiction. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.19615 of 2004 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.10.2008 ES