JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.06.12.2019 in C.M.A.No.29 of 2015 of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad confirming the order dt.01.04.2015 in I.A.No.226 of 2014 in O.S.No.1504 of 2014 of the XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The pleas in the plaint 3. He filed the said suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent society from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and to restrain the respondent from dispossessing him forcibly except by due process of law. 4. He alleged that he was inducted as a tenant by the respondent society under registered lease deed dt.10.02.2004 for ten years; that he paid refundable security deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- to a Member of the Managing Committee of the respondent society; that the monthly rent at the time of filing of the suit was Rs. 5,500/-; and that the petitioner was running a gym in the suit schedule property and had never defaulted in payment of rent. 5. He alleged that the respondent society started demanding that that petitioner pay security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- and enhancement of rent to Rs. 20,000/- per month which the petitioner did not agree; that the Members of the Managing Committee of the respondent were demanding that he vacate the premises immediately or they would damage the costly equipment in the gym; that they were scaring away the subscribers of the gym; that they issued a notice to him on 29/30.05.2014 to vacate the suit schedule property in two months making allegations of default in payment of rent and subletting which was denied by him through the reply dt.11.08.2014; that he is depending on the said premises and he cannot be permitted to be illegally evicted therefrom by the respondent. 6. The petitioner filed I.A.No.312 of 2015 seeking permission to deposit rent at Rs. 5,500/- per month to the credit of the suit. The said Application was allowed on 02.05.2016. I.A.No.226 of 2014 7. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.226 of 2014 for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from evicting him forcibly, reiterating the contents of the plaint. Written statement of the respondent 8. 5,500/- per month to the credit of the suit. The said Application was allowed on 02.05.2016. I.A.No.226 of 2014 7. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.226 of 2014 for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from evicting him forcibly, reiterating the contents of the plaint. Written statement of the respondent 8. Written Statement was filed in the suit and counter was also filed in I.A.No.226 of 2014 by the respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. 9. It alleged that it is running three High Schools and two Primary Schools; that it had constructed some shops with the aid of a contractor in part of the land which were given for lease to third parties; that the petitioner took one such leased premises on 01.03.2004 for a period of ten years under a lease deed dt.06.02.2004 which lease expired on 28.02.2014; and that the petitioner was enjoying the premises by paying meagre rent. 10. It contended that the respondent needs the suit premises for personal use for running its schools and had issued notice on 30.05.2014 to the petitioner to vacate the premises by giving two months time; that the school building where the respondent was running schools was in dilapidated condition and is about to collapse endangering the lives of the staff and students and the respondent therefore wanted to take classes in the suit schedule premises as well as other shops by getting the tenants vacated. 11. It contended that the suit schedule property is an extent of about 2000 square feet and can accommodate 2 to 3 class rooms and the total strength of students is 550 and the present class rooms were not sufficient for the students and so the suit schedule property was necessary to the respondent to run the school. 12. It denied that it engaged in any illegal activities to forcibly evict the petitioner from the suit schedule property. It also denied that it had demanded security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- and enhancement of rent to Rs. 20,000/- per month. It denied that any attempts were made by it's Members to threaten the petitioner or damage the gym equipment. 13. In the trial Court, the petitioner marked Exs.P1 to P5. The order in IA 226 of 2014 14. By order dt.01.04.2015, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.226 of 2014 and vacated the status quo order granted by it on 22.08.2014. 15. It denied that any attempts were made by it's Members to threaten the petitioner or damage the gym equipment. 13. In the trial Court, the petitioner marked Exs.P1 to P5. The order in IA 226 of 2014 14. By order dt.01.04.2015, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.226 of 2014 and vacated the status quo order granted by it on 22.08.2014. 15. It considered Ex.P1 lease deed between the parties and held that the lease commenced on 01.03.2004 and ended on 01.03.2014; Ex.P4 notice issued by the respondent shows that the petitioner did not pay property tax and was making some partition and subletting the premises without the consent of the respondent society; that there was shortage of class rooms and the respondent was in need of the suit premises for personal use and though the petitioner was asked to vacate the suit schedule property within two months from the date of receipt of Ex.P4 notice, the petitioner had not vacated the same and got issued Ex.P5 reply notice denying the allegations in Ex.P4 notice. 16. It observed that once the lease deed Ex.P1 came to an end due to lapse of tenancy, the petitioner cannot take benefit of the terms of the agreement and ask the respondent to issue three months prior notice as per the terms of the lease deed. 17. It observed that the petitioner instead of vacating the premises filed the instant suit after four months of issue of Ex.P4 notice and there was no cause of action for filing the suit and there was actually no material to show that the respondent interfered with the possession of the petitioner. It also noted that the petitioner never approached police against the threats made allegedly by the respondent and only to avoid eviction proceedings, he had filed the present I.A. C.M.A.No.29 of 2015 18. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.29 of 2015 before the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 19. The said Appeal was dismissed on 06.12.2019 by the said Court. 20. It held that after expiry of the registered lease Ex.P1 on 28.02.2014, the petitioner should establish that he is entitled to continue as lessee in the suit schedule property legally thereafter. 21. It recorded that there was no allegation in the pleadings of the petitioner from which it can be gathered that there was threat to his possession from the respondent. 22. 21. It recorded that there was no allegation in the pleadings of the petitioner from which it can be gathered that there was threat to his possession from the respondent. 22. It also held that there is no scrap of paper to show that what steps the petitioner had taken to obtain another accommodation and why he is being permitted to retain his possession over the suit schedule property. 23. It observed that the relief of injunction is an equitable relief and once the lease in favour of the petitioner got determined by efflux of time, he cannot be permitted to continue in possession thereof after receipt of Ex.P4 notice from the respondent. 24. It agreed with the trial Court that there was no cause of action to file the suit and only to delay vacation from the premises, the instant suit has been filed and the Court should not assist persons like the petitioner. 25. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed. 26. Heard both sides. The Revision 27. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though the petitioner was inducted as a tenant of the suit schedule property under Ex.P1 lease deed dt.06.02.2004 with effect from 01.03.2004, the lease expired on 28.02.2014. 28. Thereafter, the respondent society, which is the landlord, had issued Ex.P4 notice to the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property. 29. The respondent society also appears to have filed O.S.No.1909 of 2015 before the XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property. 30. Though a plea is raised by the petitioner that there were threats from the Members of the respondent society to forcibly evict him, no police complaint appears to have been lodged by the petitioner against the respondent in that regard. No witness is also examined by the petitioner to substantiate the petitioner's claim that on the dates mentioned in the plaint, there were threats made by the Members of the respondent society to get the petitioner evicted forcibly from the suit schedule property. 31. As rightly held by the lower Appellate Court and the trial Court, the relief of injunction is an equitable relief and the petitioner ought to show that after determination of his tenancy by efflux of time on 28.02.2014 he is entitled to continue in possession of the suit schedule property. 31. As rightly held by the lower Appellate Court and the trial Court, the relief of injunction is an equitable relief and the petitioner ought to show that after determination of his tenancy by efflux of time on 28.02.2014 he is entitled to continue in possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner had continued in the suit schedule property for more than six years after 28.02.2014 without having a valid lease in his favour by creating a story about illegal threat of eviction by the respondent. 32. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and is trying to squat over the property indefinitely to the detriment of the respondent which is running school and which requires the suit schedule property to accommodate the students pending reconstruction of its old school building which has become dilapidated. 33. Therefore, I do not wish to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the orders passed by the Court below. 34. Accordingly, the Revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. 35. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.