J P SWAMI Vs. RAVI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 of the Rent Controller whereby the suit of the petitioner under Section 6, Specific Relief Act filed against the respondent was dismissed. The petitioner had filed a suit bearing No. S-35/2009 against the respondent seeking possession of a part of property bearing No. A-1144, Gharoli Dairy Farm, Delhi-96. This property was stated to be having three interconnected chambers on the ground floor. As per the averments of the petitioner, he was in peaceful possession of the property, but on 28.02.1998, defendant Ravi Chand broke open the lock of the last chamber (suit property) and since then, was in possession thereof. In the written statement that was filed by the respondent, it was averred that he was a tenant in respect of the said shop under the plaintiff. Some other pleas regarding maintainability of the suit were also taken. The suit was dismissed primarily on the ground that the documents filed by the petitioner did not prove his ownership of the suit property as all these documents were unregistered. From the impugned judgment, it is also noticed that the respondent was ex parte in the suit before the learned Rent Controller.

(2.) The impugned judgment has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds. First being that the petitioner was in possession of the documents such as GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipts etc. It was submitted that these documents along with the possession created right, title or interest of the petitioner in the suit premises. It was also submitted that in any case, for filing a suit for possession under Section 6, Specific Relief Act, ownership of the property was not required to be proved. I am in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the question of title is irrelevant in a proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Reference can be made to Yeshwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh, 1968 AIR(SC) 620. The purpose behind Section 6 of the Act is to restrain a person from using force and to dispossess a person without his consent otherwise than in due course of law. The petitioner had claimed himself to be the owner and in possession of the suit premises and having acquired the same by virtue of aforesaid documents. The aforesaid documents coupled with the possession of the petitioner of the suit premises would certainly create his interest in the said property. The petitioner might not have acquired the absolute ownership of the said property by virtue of those documents, but, his being in possession of the said premises would certainly make him to claim some interest therein and which would be sufficient for the purpose of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) Further, it is also pointed by learned counsel for the petitioner and is also borne out from the record that the respondent himself had filed a suit for permanent injunction being suit No. 115/1998 (new suit No. 442/2006) claiming himself to be a tenant in respect of the said premises under the petitioner herein and his wife. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that this case was also pending before the same court and had been dismissed for non-prosecution. This was an important and relevant piece of evidence wherein the respondent himself had claimed him to be a tenant under the petitioner and ultimately did not pursue the said claim. It is seen that the petitioner did not lead sufficient evidence before the court of Rent Controller. This aspect of the respondent being a tenant and having so claimed was not brought to the notice of the learned Rent Controller. On this, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for one opportunity for leading additional evidence. Having regard to the fact that the respondent himself had filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner and his wife claiming himself to be a tenant in respect of the suit premises, and that the said fact being relevant, the impugned judgment for this reason and also for the above-mentioned reasons is being set aside. The case is remanded back to the court of learned Rent Controller with one opportunity given to the petitioner to lead additional evidence. He is directed to appear before the court of Rent Controller on 06.08.2012.