http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: S.B. NORONAH (SMT)

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1993

BENCH:

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.By  this  petition the tenant  challenges  validity  of Section 3(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.  It is claimed that similar petitions are pending in this Court. 2.Normally  there  would  have  been  no  difficulty   in entertaining  this petition but we find that the  petitioner had  approached this Court earlier by way of petition  under Article 136 and his petition was directed to be tagged  with other petitions and interim order, too, was granted.   Later on at the instance of the landlord the leave was revoked and the petition was dismissed. 3.To overcome this hurdle the learned counsel has  placed reliance on Hari Singh v. State of Haryana’ and A.R. Antulay v.  R.S.  Nayak2.  He urged that a citizen of  India  has  a constitutional right to be treated alike.  According to  him this  Court  committed  a  mistake  in  revoking  leave  and depriving  the  petitioner to avail  of  his  constitutional remedy.   Therefore, this Court is constitutionally  obliged to grant her protection. 4.Existence  of constitutional right cannot be  disputed. But  one  of  the well-established  principles  of  invoking extraordinary  jurisdiction  is to approach the  Court  with clean  hands  and honest conscience.  One cannot  abuse  the process  of Court and yet claim its protection.   Since  the Bench  revoking  the leave, found that  the  petitioner  had obtained interim order by suppression of facts, it would not be  proper  on our part to grant any indulgence  to  such  a litigant.  We, therefore, refuse to entertain this  petition and dismiss it in limine. 375