of the lease in question, does not fall within the Odai area and in such view of the matter, by way of the renewal of the lease, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to occupy the Odai area/river body and such renewal would only amount to harming the general public and permitting the plaintiff to enrich the unlawful benefit to the detriment of the general public and in such view of the matter, the Court would not extend its arms in favour of the plaintiff in the renewal of the lease as prayed for by the plaintiff in respect of the Odai area/river body and in such view of the matter, the plaintiff's prayer for specific performance of the lease deed, being a discretionary relief and as per section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court is not bound to grant the same merely because it is awful to do so, but can refuse the same on sufficient and reasonable grounds guided by judicial principles and when the principles of law had been formulated by the Apex Court as abovenoted that no private body should be allowed to perpetuate their occupation on the river body, Odai area forever and the Government is also not entitled to extend such protection to the private bodies by entering into the contract, lease with reference to the same etc., in all, it is found that the Courts below are wholly justified in non suiting the plaintiff by invoking section 20 of the Specific Relief Act as well as by adhering to the principles of law formulated by the Apex Court with a view to protect the river bodies, Odai area and in such view of the matter, the plaintiff would not be entitled to obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance of the lease deed in question seeking a direction to the Government to transfer the Odai area in their favour perpetually to the detriment of the interest of the general public.
