ANOOPCHAND REVASHANKER METHA Vs. AMERCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a deft's. appln. to revise the judgment & decree in a suit filed by the resp. Under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for the recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property on the ground that the dispossession was otherwise than in due course of law.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the suit are as under: The pltf. was a tenant in occupation under the deft. For the arrears of rent due, the deft, obtained a decree in the Ct. of Small Causes & in execution thereof obtained an order for attaching the moveables belonging to the pltf. by breaking open the look of the premises in the occupation of the pltf. The warrant of attachment of moveables was duly executed by the Amin who, in addition to the articles attached, is said to have given vacant possession of the premises to the deft, under a surety bond obliging the deft, to comply with the further orders of the Ct. The pltf's appln. to the Ct. of Small Causes for restitution of possession is said to have been resisted by the deft. & the deft, is alleged to have otherwise refused to restore the premises to the pltf. The pltf., therefore, filed this suit.

(3.) The plea of the deft, is that the pltf. cannot be consd. to have been a tenant in occupation of the premises at the time when the delivery was given to him, as a notice to quit had been served upon him terminating the tenancy by 1-1-1949, & he, having obtained possession of the premises in a lawful manner from an officer of the Ct. cannot be held to have dispossessed the pltf. otherwise than in due course of law & that the suit as at present brought is, therefore, not maintainable.