DESAI, C.J. - (1.) THIS case has been laid before this bench. The petitioner is a tenant of an accommodation and has been in the habit of illegally subletting a portion of it. The subletting by him has been illegal because it prohibited by Section 7(3) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, unless it is with the District Magistrates sanction and the landlords permission. The petitioner has been surreptitiously subletting without the District Magistrates sanction and the landlords permission in order to make an Illegal gain. The last subletting was to Dewan Chand Jain. The petitioner wanted him to vacate the part of the accommodation in order to sublet it for a higher rent but he refused. After refusing Dewan Chand Jain approached the District Magistrate and sot an order for the letting of the part of the accommodation in his favour. Subsequently the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 7A requiring the petitioner to show why he should not be made to vacate the accommodation on the ground that his occupation of it was in contravention of the order passed in favour of Dewan Chand Jain. The petitioner filed an objection against the notice issued to him denying that he had ever sublet the accommodation to Dewan Chand Jain and that it was vacant. The District Magistrate made an enquiry, found that he had sublet the accommodation to Dewan Chand Jain and that consequently it had been vacant and ordered him to vacate. The petitioner then applied to the Commissioner to revise the District Magistrates order and the application is pending. The necessity for moving the instant petition for certiorari against the District Magistrates order requiring the petitioner to vacate the accommodation arose, though his application for revision of it was pending before the Commissioner, on account of the Commissioners refusal to stay the operation of the order sought to be revised.
(2.) THE petition came before our brother Satish Chandra, who on account of certain conflict among authorities referred it to a larger bench and the petition has been laid before us. The petition deserves to be rejected on two grounds apart from the merits. One is that the petitioner is pursuing a remedy against the impugned order before the Commissioner and is not entitled to come to this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is settled now that a remedy of applying to a higher authority for revision of the impugned order is an alternative adequate remedy and a High Court can refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 on the ground that such a remedy exists. The instant is a fit case in which the discretion should be exercised in favour of refusing relief to the petitioner, there is nothing in the circumstances of this case on account of which he may be granted the relief even though an alternative adequate remedy is available to him and is being pursued by him. On this around from the petition fails.
(3.) THE other ground is that the conduct of the petitioner is such as to disentitle him to the discretionary relief. He has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has been infringing the provisions of the Rent Control and Eviction Act and came to the Court suppressing the facts. When he has been subletting in order to make unlawful gain in contravention of the law this Court should not help him in doing so. On this ground also the petition fails.;