Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 863 (PNJ)

Som Nath v. Shree Mata Mansa Devi Pooja Sthal

2000-08-04

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 8.6.2000, passed by the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Panchkula, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC, by affirming the order dated 8.5.2000, passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panchkula, who dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC. 2. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner :- 3. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to the allotment of the booths constructed by the defendants in the shopping complex at points X and Y in respect of booths No. 285 to 293 and 125 to 138, being old tenants of the defendants as per their undertaking dated 14.3.1992 and the allotment letters dated 3.4.2000 issued by the defendants are wrong and against the spirit of the undertaking and the petitioners also prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allot the booths to the plaintiffs in the shopping complex at points X and Y. It was also prayed by the petitioners that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendants from alloting any booth in the shopping complex at points X and Y, i.e. booths No. 285 to 293 and 125 to 138, to anybody else except the plaintiffs and till the allotment of the said booths is made, the plaintiffs be not dispossessed from their existing business activity. 4. According to the petitioners they were earlier the tenants under the Management of Mata Mansa Devi Mandir since the time of their fore-fathers. They have their respective shops in the temple premises as shown by the letters marked ABCD. At that time, the Management of the temple was which the owners of the temple who were the Pujaris of the said temple. The plaintiffs were paying regular rent to them. The Haryana Govt. enacted Shree Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Act, 1991 and took over the possession of the Shrine. A Board was constituted under the name and style of Shree Mata Mansa Devi Pooja Sthal Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as per the said Act. All the properties of the Temple vested in the Board. The Haryana Govt. enacted Shree Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Act, 1991 and took over the possession of the Shrine. A Board was constituted under the name and style of Shree Mata Mansa Devi Pooja Sthal Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as per the said Act. All the properties of the Temple vested in the Board. The defendant-Board/Estate Officer took over the Temple in March, 1992 and issued letters to the plaintiffs that the shops will be given on rent outside the premises of the temple. As per section 19(3) of the said Act, it has been clearly mentioned that the shop keepers and other lease holders who were the tenants of the Shrine will become the tenants of the Board. After the Board took over the Management, the rent of the shops in question was increased. The defendants issued letters to the plaintiffs dated 14.3.1992 that they are being temporarily adjusted in the make-shift shops located in front of the shrine till the new shops are constructed. As soon as the shopping complex is constructed on the left hand side of the Entrance of the Mata Mansa Devi Complex, the plaintiffs will be allotted one shop each for which they will pay monthly rent regularly. The rent was increased by 50% and the plaintiffs are paying the rent regularly. The plaintiffs are running the shops for the sale of Parshad (Bhog) as shown in the letters marked EFGH. In October, 1993, the defendants threatened to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 filed a suit for permanent injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendants and plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 were held as tenants over the respective shops and the suit was decreed. Plaintiff No. 10 filed a separate suit, which was also decreed. Now, the defendants have constructed the shopping complex at points X and Y. In the year 1998, defendant No. 3 issued letters to the plaintiffs on 8.9.1998 for their rehabilitation. In response to the said letters, the plaintiffs applied for the allotment of the shops without prejudice to their rights of undertaking dated 14.3.1992. The defendants are bound to provide the shops to the plaintiffs on the left hand side of the temple as per the undertaking given on 14.3.1992. In response to the said letters, the plaintiffs applied for the allotment of the shops without prejudice to their rights of undertaking dated 14.3.1992. The defendants are bound to provide the shops to the plaintiffs on the left hand side of the temple as per the undertaking given on 14.3.1992. The plaintiffs submitted their applications for allotment of the shops on the left hand side of the portion constructed in the complex at point X. The plaintiffs also deposited Rs. 27,900/- each for the allotment of the shops. The defendants instead of allotting the shops to the plaintiffs on the left side of the main road, allotted the shops vide letters dated 3.4.2000 to the plaintiffs at different places and in the other shopping complex which are at a more distance from the temple. The business of the plaintiffs is such that they cannot run at separate places. The allotment of the shops will not serve any purpose. The plaintiffs have got preferential rights for allotment in Block X and Y, being old tenants and as per the undertaking given on 14.3.1992. No shop has been allotted to anybody by the defendants in the shopping complex marked X and Y. The area of the shops in occupation of the plaintiffs ranges from 600 sq.feet to 1400 sq.feet, whereas the size of the booths allotted to them is less than 300 sq.feet and the price charged from the plaintiffs is Rs. 2,79,000/-. The plaintiffs requested to the defendants to allot the booths as per the terms and conditions of the undertaking dated 14.3.1992 and to correct the allotment letters, but to no avail. Hence, the suit. 5. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, r/w Section 151, CPC, for the grant of interim injunction till the decision of the suit restraining the defendants from making any allotment in respect of booths Nos. 285 to 293 in shopping complex shown at Point X and booth Nos. 125 to 138 in the shopping complex at Point Y, in the site plan and also from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their existing shops. 6. The suit as well as the application was contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement and pleaded that the plaintiffs were the tenants of the Management of Mata Mansa Devi. 125 to 138 in the shopping complex at Point Y, in the site plan and also from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their existing shops. 6. The suit as well as the application was contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement and pleaded that the plaintiffs were the tenants of the Management of Mata Mansa Devi. It was also admitted that as per Section 19(3) of the Act, the shopkeepers and the other holders who were tenants of the Shrine in the area referred to in the Act became the tenants of the Board. It was further pleaded that the HUDA took over the charge of the construction of the booths. A new scheme for rehabilitation of the shopkeepers was floated. As per that scheme, the applications were invited by HUDA. HUDA imposed certain conditions for allotment of the booths. The plaintiffs accepted those conditions. The plaintiffs have no preferential right of allotment in Blocks X and Y in the Shopping Complex and are bound to accept the allotment as per terms and conditions of their undertaking given by them. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the Court. They have been allotted the booths as per their undertaking. They are bound to vacate the unauthorised possession over the allotment of the booths. 7. The suit was also contested by defendants No. 2 and 3 and it was pleaded that on 21.8.1998, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Administrator, HUDA, regarding rehabilitation of the shopkeepers of Shree Mata Mansa Devi Temple. It was decided to rehabilitate them by offering them to built up the booths or Kiosks as per the terms and conditions of the application. Defendant No. 3 issued the letters to the plaintiffs on 8.9.1998 for their rehabilitation. The plaintiffs applied for alternative shops. No assurance was given to the plaintiffs that they will be allotted the shops on the left hand side of the entrance of the temple. The defendants are not bound to provide the shops to the plaintiffs on the left hand side of the temple. The plaintiffs are bound by the undertaking given to the Estate Officer, HUDA, and by the terms and conditions of the allotment. As per the undertaking, the plaintiffs are bound to vacate the present site without any further rights, interest or compensation. The plaintiffs are bound by the undertaking given to the Estate Officer, HUDA, and by the terms and conditions of the allotment. As per the undertaking, the plaintiffs are bound to vacate the present site without any further rights, interest or compensation. As the defendants have already issued the allotment letters of the site to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have got no preferential rights for allotment of the shops in Blocks X and Y in the shopping complex. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs have concealed material facts from the Court regarding their undertaking. With this broad defence, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit as well as the stay application. 8. The parties placed documents before the trial Court in support of their case including some site plans, etc., and the learned trial Court vide order dated 8.5.2000 dismissed the application for the reasons given in para 4 of the order, which reads as under :- "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material circumstances of the case thoroughly and very carefully. The point for determination in the present case is whether the defendants are bound to allot the shops in the alignment of booth No. 285 to 293 and booth No. 125 to 138. According to the plaintiffs the defendants had assured in the letter dated 14.3.1992 that the shops will be provided on the left hand side of the temple and so the plaintiffs should be allotted the booths/shops in the front line of the complex constructed by the defendants. Copy of the letter dated 14.3.1992 has been placed on file. A perusal of the letter shows that no such undertaking was given by the defendants in the letter. In the letter it is mentioned that as soon as the shopping complex is constructed on the left hand side of the entrance of the temple, the plaintiffs will be allotted one of those shops. Now the shopping complex has been constructed on the left hand side of the entrance of the temple and the plaintiffs have been allotted shops in the complex. The plaintiffs have no right to claim the shops of the front line only because of tenants. According to the defendants the remaining shops will be auctioned. Now the shopping complex has been constructed on the left hand side of the entrance of the temple and the plaintiffs have been allotted shops in the complex. The plaintiffs have no right to claim the shops of the front line only because of tenants. According to the defendants the remaining shops will be auctioned. The plaintiffs can purchase the shops of front line in the open auction if they want to purchase the shops in the front line. The plaintiffs are bound to vacate the existing shops as per the undertaking given by them in the application for allotment." 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the first appeal under Order 43 CPC, before the Addl. Distt. Judge, Panchkula, who after hearing the contentions of the parties and for the reasons given in paras 9 to 22 of the judgment dated 8.6.2000, dismissed the appeal by holding that the petitioners do not deserve the equitable relief of temporary injunction and they have no prima facie case to succeed, rather, they have concealed material facts. Paragraphs 9 to 22 of the judgment of the first appellate Court read as under :- "9. Initiating the arguments, Shri S.K. Sud, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs are tenants in the shops in question from time of their fore-father. They were in possession of the shops shown at point AB in the site plan. He contended that the Management of the temple was taken by the Board with Enactment of the Act. As per Section 19 sub-section (3) of the Act, the plaintiffs have become the tenants of the Board. In the year 1992 the plaintiffs were shifted to the space shown as EF in the site plan as per letter dated 14.3.1992. The plaintiffs had shifted in compliance of these letters. 10. He further contended that in October, 1993, the defendants tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit in the Civil Court for permanent injunction which was decreed in their favour. Only the plaintiff No. 6 has not filed any suit. 11. He further contended that HUDA has taken over the scheme for the construction of the shops. The status of the appellants-plaintiffs will not change with the taking over the scheme for the construction of the shops by the HUDA. The plaintiffs are the tenants and are not in unauthorised possession. 11. He further contended that HUDA has taken over the scheme for the construction of the shops. The status of the appellants-plaintiffs will not change with the taking over the scheme for the construction of the shops by the HUDA. The plaintiffs are the tenants and are not in unauthorised possession. A scheme was floated in the year 1998 for the rehabilitation of the shopkeepers. The plaintiffs had accepted the scheme and deposited the amount with the HUDA for allotment of the booths on the left hand side of the temple. There was no undertaking of the draw of the plots. The plaintiffs had the preferential rights being old tenants. He further contended that the defendants have allotted the booths to the plaintiffs at a considerable distance from the temple at scattered places, whereas they should have been allotted shops in the Shopping Complex Mark X and Y. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the defendants are bound by the undertaking dated 14.3.1992 and they have no right to dispossess the plaintiffs from the existing shops. No undertaking has been given by the plaintiffs that they will vacate the site in dispute. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for ad- interim injunction. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiffs are sitting over the land of the HUDA. They are being rehabilitated in built up booths. They have been allotted the booths as per their undertakings. The plaintiffs already deposited the amount for the allotment after accepting the terms and conditions of the allotment. He further contended that the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the Court regarding their undertakings dated 21.5.1999 and 15.10.1998. In order to secure the allotment in their undertakings, the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights and have undertaken to vacate the existing shops within a period of fortnight from the date of the possession of the constructed shops. So, in view of these undertakings, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief of injunction. He further contended that the plaintiffs have no preferential rights of allotment of any particular booth/shop. 13. I have duly considered the contentions raised by both the parties. So, in view of these undertakings, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief of injunction. He further contended that the plaintiffs have no preferential rights of allotment of any particular booth/shop. 13. I have duly considered the contentions raised by both the parties. It is the settled principle of law that in order to secure the relief of temporary injunction, the plaintiffs were required to show the prima facie case in their favour, that they will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is refused. 14. It is also the settled principle of law that if that the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the Court, they are not entitled for equitable relief of injunction. In the instant case, it is not disputed that earlier the plaintiffs were occupying the shops in the temple premises. When the Management of the temple was taken over by the Board, they were shifted in the make-shift shops vide letter dated 14.3.1992. In the letter dated 14.3.1992 it was mentioned that as soon as the shopping complex is constructed on the left hand side of the entrance of Mata Mansa Devi temple, they will be allotted one of these shops for which they will regularly pay the rent fixed by the Board. It is not disputed that later on the scheme for the construction of the Shopping Complex was handed over to the HUDA and the HUDA has floated the scheme for rehabilitation of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have applied for allotment of the shops in the Shopping Complex constructed by the HUDA. 15. There is no prima facie evidence on the file to show that the plaintiffs have any preferential rights of the allotment of the shops in any particular block. There is no such agreement/undertaking in the letter dated 14.3.1992 that the plaintiffs shall have the preferential rights for allotment of the shops in Block X and Y of the Shopping Complex shown in the site plan attached with the plaint. 16. The plaintiffs in this case have also tried to conceal the material facts from the Court regarding their undertakings. Appellant No. 1 Som Nath has given undertaking on 15.10.1998. Appellant No. 4 Ashok Kumar has given undertaking on 14.10.1998 and the remaining eight appellants have given the undertakings on 21.5.1999. These undertakings are very material. 16. The plaintiffs in this case have also tried to conceal the material facts from the Court regarding their undertakings. Appellant No. 1 Som Nath has given undertaking on 15.10.1998. Appellant No. 4 Ashok Kumar has given undertaking on 14.10.1998 and the remaining eight appellants have given the undertakings on 21.5.1999. These undertakings are very material. Vide these undertakings the appellants have requested for the allotment of the constructed shops in Shopping Centre, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, under rehabilitation Scheme for the shop-keepers located along with the approach road to Mata Mansa Devi temple. They have also undertaken to relinquish all the rights and to vacate the present site without any further right, title, interest or compensation within fortnight from the date of the possession of the constructed shops. They have also undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment. In these undertakings the appellants have not claimed for allotment of the shops in any particular block. They have relinquished their rights and have undertaken to vacate the existing sites within 15 days from the date of the taking over the possession of the constructed shops. 17. It is not disputed that the HUDA has allotted the built booths to all the appellants by draw of lots vide allotment letter dated 3.4.2000. Vide this allotment letter the possession of the built up booths has been offered to the appellants which is to be given after the vacation of the earlier premises without any delay. 18. The plaintiffs-appellants have not disclosed in the plaint regarding their undertakings mentioned above which prima facie amounts to the concealment of the material facts from the Court and clearly disentitle the appellants for the equitable relief of the temporary injunction. These undertakings are very material in nature to determine the rights of the parties. 19. As already discussed there is no prima facie evidence on the file to establish that the plaintiffs have any preferential rights for allotment of the shops in any particular block. The defendants have allotted the shops to the plaintiff-appellants by draw of lots with intention to rehabilitate in the built up shops. The Shopping Complex constructed is also situated on the left hand side of the temple complex which is clear from the site plan attached with the plaint. The defendants have allotted the shops to the plaintiff-appellants by draw of lots with intention to rehabilitate in the built up shops. The Shopping Complex constructed is also situated on the left hand side of the temple complex which is clear from the site plan attached with the plaint. If the plaintiffs are not satisfied with the present location of the shops, they can also participate in the open auction or any other mode of allotment adopted by HUDA for the allotment of the other shops constructed in the Shopping Complex. But as per the undertakings given by them, they are bound to vacate the existing sites. Thus, the plaintiffs/appellants have no prima facie case in their favour. 20. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of appellants as they are causing hindrance in the development work of the HUDA by retaining the possession of the existing sites/shops in spite of allotment of the built up booths by HUDA to rehabilitate them. 21. The appellants are also not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the injunction is refused because they have already been allotted the built up booths by the defendants to run their shops. 22. So, keeping in view my above discussion, the plaintiffs-appellants are not entitled for the equitable relief of temporary injunction. Thus, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court. The present appeal is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. ........." 10. The petitioners are still aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below and hence, the present revision. 11. The defendants-respondents filed a caveat and vide order dated 14.6.2000, records of the trial Court were summoned in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties. The records were received. During the course of submissions, I have also taken note of certain documents shown to me by the respective parties. 12. I have heard the counsel for the parties and am of the considered opinion that there is no scope for interference on the part of this Court in the impugned judgment dated 8.6.2000, as both the Courts have taken note of each and every factor and rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners have no, prima facie, case to succeed and the balance of convenience does not lie in their favour. Rather, they are guilty of concealment of material facts and equitable relief of injunction should not be granted in favour of such litigants. 13. A person who seeks equity and approaches the civil Court must not come with soiled hands and a party who seeks temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, must prove that he has a prima facie case to succeed; that balance of convenience lies in his favour; that he would suffer an irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted in his favour and the law is further that all these three ingredients should co-exist before a relief of temporary injunction can be allowed. In this regard, support can be taken from Man Singh and another v. H.S. Kohli and others, 1997(1) PLR 643, a judgment of this Court, which was even relied by Mr. Dhuriwala in support of his contentions. 14. Mr. Dhuriwala vehemently submitted that in the earlier suit filed by some of the petitioners, a decree was passed in their favour by the Court of Sh. A.S. Narang, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ambala City, on 23.4.1996 vide which a decree for permanent injunction was granted in favour of Som Nath and seven others and the defendants were restrained from interfering in their possession. This suit was decreed against Shree Mata Mansa Devi Pooja Sthal Board and the Chief Administrator and it was held that the plaintiffs were tenants in possession of the disputed shops and that defendants have no right to dispossess them forcibly or illegally from the disputed shops. At least the petitioners are the recognised tenants of Mata Mansa Devi Pooja Sthal, i.e. the Board, and the Estate Officer or the Chief Administrator, HUDA, has no business to direct the plaintiffs to vacate the shops being occupied by the petitioners. The landlord of the petitioners earlier was the Mandir and, thereafter, the Board and in the Act, the rights of the tenants have been recognised by inter alia providing that they will become the tenants of the Board. Mr. Dhuriwala even submitted that the undertaking dated 14.3.1992 clearly spells out that the undertaking was given by the defendants, i.e. the Chief Administrator, Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Complex, that "Till such time the new shops are constructed, you are being temporarily adjusted in make-shift shops located in the front of the shrine. Mr. Dhuriwala even submitted that the undertaking dated 14.3.1992 clearly spells out that the undertaking was given by the defendants, i.e. the Chief Administrator, Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Complex, that "Till such time the new shops are constructed, you are being temporarily adjusted in make-shift shops located in the front of the shrine. As soon as the shopping Complex is constructed on the left hand side of the entrance of the Mata Mansa Devi Temple, you will be allotted one of those shops for which you will pay regular monthly rent as fixed by the Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board". The counsel built an argument that the undertaking given by the respondents was that the petitioners would be adjusted in the shopping complex, which would be constructed on the left side, if one enters the Temple from the main entrance. Mr. Dhuriwala wanted to convey that the petitioners can only be adjusted and allotted booths at points X and Y and the shopping complex which is on the left side of the entrance and at no other place. He submitted that to the hardship of the petitioners and for causing business losses to them, they are being adjusted at a far away place and the devotees would not like to cover a distance of 600 feet approximately in order to purchase Parshad/Bhog to be offered to the Deity. Mr. Dhuriwala with the help of the site plan, showed me the existing shops of the plaintiffs and also the portion marked X and Y where the petitioners want adjustment. He has also highlighted the space where the booths have been allotted to the petitioners. He, finally, went to the extent of saying that even if the petitioners had given any undertaking or they have been allotted certain booths, still they are not bound to vacate the shops presently held by them at the instance of the HUDA authorities and the right, if any, exists in favour of the Deity, to eject the petitioners from the premises occupied by them presently and that too through the process of law. Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon different judgments, which I would discuss in the later portion of this judgment. 15. According to the respondents, the suit decreed was that the plaintiffs will not be ejected except in due course of law. Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon different judgments, which I would discuss in the later portion of this judgment. 15. According to the respondents, the suit decreed was that the plaintiffs will not be ejected except in due course of law. An undertaking dated 14.3.1992 was given by the Board that a shopping complex will be constructed. According to this undertaking, the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana, who is the Chairman of the Board, had given an administrative-cum-financial sanction for the construction of the new shops on the entrance of the Temple on the left hand side. The construction was to start immediately after the Navratras due in the month of April, 1992. Till the shopping complex was constructed, the petitioners were temporarily adjusted in make-shift shops located in front of the shrine. As soon as the shopping complex was constructed on the left hand side of the entrance of the Temple, the previous occupiers will be allotted one of those shops for which they will pay monthly rent as fixed by the board. Shopping complex has been constructed on the left side of the entrance. About 300 shops were constructed on the left side of the complex though these shops have been scattered at different points. It was never undertaken by the Management that the petitioners shall only be accommodated in the booths Marked X and Y. Rather, the allotment of the shops has to go by draw and every proposed allottee shall have to lift a Parchi and whatever number he gets, he will be accommodated in that very shop. All the 300 shops approximately, could not be built on the left side of the entrance but the shopping complex has been made on the left side of the temple itself. So much so, the petitioners gave an undertaking that they relinquish all their rights previously held by them and have even deposited the amount. Allotments have been made in their favour as per the draw. It is a matter of chance who gets which of the booths. If some shop is at some distance from the actual entrance of the Mandir, the petitioners shall have no grouse, once they have participated in the draw and they have deposited the money. The petitioners have concealed material facts from the Courts. They are harping on the decree dated 23.4.1996. If some shop is at some distance from the actual entrance of the Mandir, the petitioners shall have no grouse, once they have participated in the draw and they have deposited the money. The petitioners have concealed material facts from the Courts. They are harping on the decree dated 23.4.1996. Much water has flown after the passing of the decree by Mr. Narang. As per the arrangement, the petitioners are liable to be dispossessed from the existing shops. The entire management of the Mandir has gone to the Board. The site belongs to HUDA to whom the work of construction of the shopping complex was entrusted by the Chief Administrator. None of the petitioners has any prima facie case to succeed and their application has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. Mr. Mohunta adopted all the reasons which have been given by the first appellate Court in dismissing the appeal. 16. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that this revision is totally devoid of any merit as I do not see any illegality or impropriety or miscarriage of justice in the passing of the impugned orders. The decree dated 23.4.1996 does not say that in no eventuality the petitioners cannot be evicted. The decree was that the plaintiffs will not be dispossessed from their place of work otherwise than by due process of law. Mata Mansa Devi Complex is a very historical place. Hundreds of devotees daily visit this Mandir and during the days of Navratras, this Mandir is visited by lacs of people in order to pay obeisance to the Deity. This Deity represents the faith of all sections of the Society and there is no distinction of caste, creed and sex. Much water has flown after the passing of the decree dated 23.4.1996. The Management of this Mandir was transferred to the State Govt. which constituted a Board and the Chief Administrator was nominated. Acquisition of the Mandir was under an Act. In order to renovate the entrance to the Mandir, it was thought proper by the authorities to make dignified arrangements and due care and convenience of the previous shop-keepers was also taken note of and their rights were protected and they were held to be tenants of the Board, i.e. the new Management. In order to renovate the entrance to the Mandir, it was thought proper by the authorities to make dignified arrangements and due care and convenience of the previous shop-keepers was also taken note of and their rights were protected and they were held to be tenants of the Board, i.e. the new Management. In the year 1992, the Administrator issued letters to the occupiers of the Khokas/previous holders that it was decided by the Chief Administrator-cum- Chairman of the Board to construct new shops on the entrance of the Temple on the left hand side and he has also given the administrative-cum-financial sanction for the same. The construction was to commence immediately after the Navratras of April, 1992. Till such time these new shops were constructed, the petitioners were adjusted in make-shift shops located in front of the Shrine. As soon as the shopping complex was constructed on the left hand side of the entrance of the Temple, the petitioners were allotted one of those shops for which they have to pay rent regularly. A reading of this letter nowhere specifies that it was the intention of the Administrator at the time of issuing of the letter that any individual will be accommodated at a particular place. 400 shops were constructed. There has to be some rational basis for the allotment of the shops/booths and draw of lots is one of the recognised modes. Everybody cannot be made happy nor everybody can be accommodated in a particular shop which abuts or which is very near to the main entrance of the Shrine. The shopping complex is a scattered one, including the complex at points X and Y. It is the luck of the individual where he gets the booth. The allotment is by draw of lots and by picking of the Parchis. Again, the Parchis are not picked up by the authorities but by the previous allottees. Many persons dip in the sea; few get diamonds, few get sand and pebbles, few get motis and few get nothing. 17. The things do not rest here. Each of the plaintiffs made an application for the allotment of the booths. So much so, they deposited Rs. 27,900/- each. Many persons dip in the sea; few get diamonds, few get sand and pebbles, few get motis and few get nothing. 17. The things do not rest here. Each of the plaintiffs made an application for the allotment of the booths. So much so, they deposited Rs. 27,900/- each. They gave the following request in the year 1998, much after the passing of the decree :- "I/We request that I/we may be allotted a constructed shop in centre Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex under rehabilitation scheme for shopkeepers located along approach road to Mata Mansa Devi Temple. I/We agree to abide by the terms and conditions as contained in the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. I/We also undertake that I/We will relinquish all rights in and vacate the unauthorised/present site/construction without any further right, title, interest or compensation within a fortnight from the date of possession of constructed shop. I/We have carefully gone through the terms and conditions for allotment enclosed with this application and I/We agree to abide by these terms and conditions without prejudice to right under the undertaking dated 14.3.1992 by the Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board." 18. Thus, each of the petitioners had undertaken that he will relinquish all his rights and would vacate the unauthorised/present site without any right, title or interest or compensation within a fortnight from the date of possession of the constructed shops. The booths are ready. Not only this, the booths were allotted, for example, Som Nath was allotted booth No. 217, Rajinder Singh booth No. 154, Darshan Lal booth No. 206, Dharam Pal booth No. 187, Abdul Rashid Booth No. 252 and Ashok Kumar booth No. 244. The numbers of the booths at points X and Y are from 268 to 276, 285 to 293, 97 to 110 and 125 to 138. The desire of the petitioners is that they should be accommodated in these booths instead of the booths which have already been constructed on the left side of the entrance of the temple. This was not the undertaking. The undertaking was for rehabilitation and not the allotment of the booths by choice. The plaintiffs have concealed that they had submitted the undertaking in the year 1998. They had decided voluntarily to relinquish their right, title or interest on the completion of the shopping complex. This was not the undertaking. The undertaking was for rehabilitation and not the allotment of the booths by choice. The plaintiffs have concealed that they had submitted the undertaking in the year 1998. They had decided voluntarily to relinquish their right, title or interest on the completion of the shopping complex. In these circumstances, they have no right to occupy the existing shops where they are now under possession. They are being shifted in an authorised manner and they cannot continue to remain at their existing place of work under the garb of the decree dated 23.4.1996 which does not give them an unlimited right to retain the possession. With the transfer of the affairs of the Mandir, they are virtually the tenants of the Board, which has given the right to the HUDA authorities to construct the booths. The petitioners entered into correspondence with the HUDA authorities, which had the authority to construct the shopping complex on behalf of the Board. Any communication addressed by the petitioners to HUDA, is virtually a communication to the Administrator of the Board. The petitioners cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. They have accepted the terms of allotment. They are being accommodated but they want to be accommodated at the place of their choice, which is not permissible. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents. If the petitioners are allowed to continue, then, every other shopkeeper will occupy the main entrance of the Mandir to attract the customers and, thus, it will be a source of nuisance to the devotees who visit the Mandir to pay obeisance to the Deity in thousands and lacs, especially during Navratras which come twice in a year. The petitioners are not likely to suffer any irreparable injury. They have got their avocation. They have deposited the money. They just want to continue with their unauthorised possession which cannot be permitted by the law. 19. Now, I deal with the case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments in Hanuman v. Giarsi Lal, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 385, Mangli Ram v. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala and others, 1998(2) PLR 261 : 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 191 (P&H), Ram Narain Aggarwal and another v. Delhi Development Authority and others, 2000(2) PLR 19 and Moola v. Smt. Ram Payari, 1993(1) RCR(Civil) 565. 20. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments in Hanuman v. Giarsi Lal, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 385, Mangli Ram v. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala and others, 1998(2) PLR 261 : 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 191 (P&H), Ram Narain Aggarwal and another v. Delhi Development Authority and others, 2000(2) PLR 19 and Moola v. Smt. Ram Payari, 1993(1) RCR(Civil) 565. 20. I have gone through all these authorities. In view of the facts stated above, the petitioners have no indefeasible right to occupy the existing premises. A very strong ground was supposed to be made out by the petitioners to interfere with the well reasoned orders when the Courts below did not think proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. The conduct of the petitioners is not clean. They have approached the Court with soiled hands. If the conduct of a party seeking the injunction is not fair, such a party cannot be granted equitable relief as held in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others v. Coca Cola Co. and others, 1995(5) SCC 545. 21. I have considered all the pros and cons of this case and I am of the considered opinion that this revision is totally meritless and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 22. Before I part with this order, I may also say that I have also taken into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that directions be given to the trial Court to conclude the case within three months and till then, the petitioners be not dispossessed, and find no merit in the same. The petitioners cannot be allowed to perpetuate with the alleged right which prima facie does not exist in their favour. 23. Nothing stated above shall amount to expression of my opinion on the merits of the case. 24. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed. Revision dismissed.