S. N Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 20-1-1994 as contained in Annexure No. I to the writ petition and also for a writ, order dated 20-1 1994 from the prescribed authority which allowed the application of the landlord moved under section 23 of Act. 13 of 1972 and ordered for issuance of the order of eviction accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court by means of this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. He contended that the status of the petitioner in the shop under consideration was not of a tenant as no allotment order in his favour has been passed by the competent authority. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon this court's full bench decision Nootan Kumar v. IInd Addl. District Judge. Banda, 1993 (2) ARC 204 in which it was held that no valid tenancy in the absence of allotment order could be created under the provisions of Act 13 of 1972, The argument appears to carry force but then petitioner on his own assertion stands out this court. This court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot be exercised In favour of a licence who now is a trespasser who earlier had lost in the release proceedings up to this court and inspite of having given under-taking to this court to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord after 11-10-1993, had violated the same. It was well- settled proposition of law that a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands but in this case, however the position was totally otherwise. The possession of the petitioner upon the shop in dispute was illegal and his conduct had been highly objectionable due to which this court was bound not to protect his ejectment which was being done in a legal and valid manner. The petitioner, as a matter of fart, should have been made to face the consequences of violation of the undertaking given by him to this court but in order to put an end to the long drawn litigation, I do not propose to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment of the full Bench of this court had got no retrospective effect and it did not in any manner adversely effect the case of the petitioner. The contention, however, was not correct. This Court does not lay down, law. It only Interprets the law as it stands and the interpretation applies to all the pending proceedings. There was, therefore, no escape for the petitioner.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. The writ petition is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.;