“Presence of malicious conduct of the parties if found, becomes sufficient for the court to not grant any relief to the concerned parties”, this remarkable stand was forwarded by Odisha HC in the writ appeal case of Abhinash Kumar Lohani v. Jitendra Kumar Sahoo & Others, [WRIT APPEAL NO.586 of 2020], chaired by Justice Sanju Panda & Justice S. K. Panigrahi. the bench in this present case allowed the instant writ appeal, thereby disposing off the case.
The respondent no.1 is a gold merchant who possess the ownership of many properties including a huge mall named as “B.S. Mall”. He was a tenant under joint family firm of the Appellant-M/s Kumar Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. and Dillip Kumar Ram. The period of tenancy was up to 31.12.2012 and it was never extended even though Clause-4 of the Deed of Agreement expressly provided for extension of the lease period by renewal of the agreement. In a family partition the aforesaid property fell in the share of the present appellant. Since the tenancy period of the respondent No.1 was over in 2012, the appellant-landlord approached the respondent No.1 to enter into a fresh rent agreement or to hand over the vacant possession to him. But, the respondent No.1 took evasive plea and refused to vacate the possession. As a result of which, the present Appellant was compelled to file a suit for eviction and the same is pending before the 4 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar registered as C.S.No.81 of 2020.
The present Writ Appeal seeks to challenge the Order dated 23.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23804 of 2020 directing the electricity authority to provide temporary electricity supply in favor of the Writ Petitioner/present Respondent No.1 which amounts to granting the main relief sought for in the writ petition by the Respondent No.1.
After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the hon’ble HC observed that, In fact, the conduct of the Respondent No.1 in seeking the intervention of this Court with unclean hands is sufficient for non-suiting to get any relief which is succinctly echoed in plethora of judgments like Dalip Singh v. State (2010) 2 SCC 114 & Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn) (2010) 4 SCC 728. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and sans proper reasoning.
The bench further added that, the decision dated 23.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.23804 of 2020 is set aside, responded was asked to vacate the premises after restoring all his dues within 30 days from the date of the delivery of the judgment.
In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present case allowed the instant writ appeal, thereby disposing off the case.
