Judgment C.K. Buch, J.—Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, HUF of Hemantbhai Motibhai Patel through Darshan H. Patel has prayed that this Court may issue appropriate writ, order or direction in terms of Para 17[a] and [b]. It would be beneficial to reproduce relevant Para 17[a] and [b]. “[a] Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent corporation to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Patel Building, near Ellisbridge on the Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. [b] Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent corporation to comply with the terms of the agreement and pay outstanding taxes of municipality and other local taxes including electricity charges during the pendency of admission hearing and final disposal of petition.” 2. There is strong resistance from Mr. Siraj Gori, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Gujarat Agro Marine Products Ltd., now, Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association, that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed, because, no writ petition would lie against the respondent corporation as the same is in reference to rent contract between the petitioner and respondent as both of them technically are landlord and tenant. While admitting the petition, this Court vide order dated 16.07.2003 granted interim relief to the petitioner and the respondents were directed to deposit arrears of rent, arrears of municipal tax and electricity charges as per the lease deed. The said order of learned Single Judge was assailed by way of intra-court appeal and while dealing with the Letters Patent Appeal No. 776 of 2003 and Civil Application No. 5593 of 2003 made therein, Division Bench observed as under:— “What is claimed by the respondent in Special Civil Application No.7376 of 2001 is a decree of eviction, and this Court is of the confirmed view that such a petition is not maintainable in view of specific provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. As the petition is not maintainable, interim relief could not have been granted. The interim relief virtually directs the parties to implement the rent note which is contract between the parties. Such a course is not permissible to a Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. As the petition is not maintainable, interim relief could not have been granted. The interim relief virtually directs the parties to implement the rent note which is contract between the parties. Such a course is not permissible to a Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. As the order, prima facie, appears to be without jurisdiction, interim relief as claimed for in paragraph 3(A) of the application is granted till hearing of the appeal.” According to Mr. Gori, this Court, therefore, may dismiss the petition, because, learned Division Bench has recorded that the order of interim relief granted is prima facie without jurisdiction and the petition is not maintainable. 1. Ms. P.J. Dawavala, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, on the instructions received by her from the petitioner has mentioned that pending this petition, the petitioner has been handed over peaceful vacant possession of the premises and therefore, no formal relief prayed in Para [a] of the petition is required to be granted, because, the petitioners have taken over possession and the rented property was thereafter demolished and the petitioner family has disposed of the land upon which rented property was existing. According to Ms. Dawavala, the respondent being instrumentality of the State, at least, should be asked to pay and clear the dues paid by the landlord to the Municipal Corporation, accrued, after getting some concession from the Corporation in a scheme floated by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. About Rs.13.00 lakhs have been paid. She submitted that when the petitioner attempted to pay tax and cess due and payable to the Corporation, it was realized that the respondent Corporation had already paid Rs. 5.00 lakh to the Municipal Corporation and that amount was given credit of to the landlord at the time of settling and clearing tax bills and the arrears payable up to the date of taking over possession by the petitioner. 2. 5.00 lakh to the Municipal Corporation and that amount was given credit of to the landlord at the time of settling and clearing tax bills and the arrears payable up to the date of taking over possession by the petitioner. 2. For the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that there was a specific contract between the landlord and tenant that taxes shall be paid by the respondent tenant at the time of handing over possession, and is found confirmed by tenant and its tax liability, it would not be either proper or legal for the Court to issue any direction to the respondent Corporation to pay the entire sum that has been paid by the landlord to the Municipal Corporation as the landlord was interested in getting title of the property cleared and in getting the encumbrance in the form of tax payable to the Corporation removed. When the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the petition would not be maintainable, it would not be proper for this Court to issue any such or similar direction to the respondent. 4. However, before parting with the order, the Court thinks it fit to observe that it would be appropriate for the State or any instrumentality of the State to see that arrears if are payable to landlord, then, such liability is cleared as early as possible, especially when the respondent Corporation itself has paid Rs.5.00 lakhs directly to the Municipal Corporation in past and that too, after handing over possession of the property to landlord. 5. Mr. Gori submits that he has no specific instructions in this regard. On the contrary, say of Mr. Gori is that when the petition is not maintainable, then, the Court may restrain itself from even making such observations, because, the same would give rise to one more litigation between the petitioner and the respondent. It is also submitted that if the petitioner feels that because of any subsequent writing or understanding between the respondent Corporation and the petitioner or the person who took over possession has acquired any right to claim and recover the amount of tax etc., then, it would be a fresh cause and, therefore, also, this Court may not observe anything in favour of the petitioner. 6. 6. When this Court is not issuing any direction and asking the respondent to clear up the amount in the form of mandamus, the Court even while dismissing petition, can look into the equities and the Court, therefore, is inclined to observe that respondent should, at least, try to settle the account being cooperative society [an erstwhile Corporation/Company] being instrumentality of the State. 7. The present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.