THOMAS KURUVILLA Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in a suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act is the petitioner. The suit for recovery of possession under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act was filed by the first respondent herein as plaintiff alleging that the first defendant had dispossessed the plaintiff within six months of the suit and he was entitled to recover possession of the property. The plaint schedule property is a shop room. According to the plaintiff he was the owner of the shop room. The shop room was reconstructed in the year 1990. Prior to its reconstruction the first defendant was a tenant of the shop room under him. When the plaintiff requested the first defendant to vacate the shop room for the purpose of enabling him to reconstruct the entire building, the first defendant surrendered the shop room to the plaintiff on 10.9.1988. The building was reconstructed by the plaintiff and it was rented out to the second defendant for a period of four months on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. That lease was subsequently renewed. While the transaction of lease with the second defendant was subsisting, the first defendant trespassed into the plaint schedule property on 28.8.1991 and dispossessed the second defendant forcibly and thereafter the first defendant is in illegal possession. The first defendant had filed a suit OS 691 of 1991 for an injunction restraining the present plaintiff from evicting him by force from the shop room. That suit was tried jointly with the suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act The first defendant contended that the suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act was not maintainable. He admitted that he had surrendered the old shop room to the plaintiff but pleaded that that surrender was on the basis of a specific agreement with the plaintiff that on reconstruction of the building the southeastern corner room in the newly constructed building would be leased out to the first defendant and it was pursuant to such an agreement that after reconstruction he was put in possession of the disputed shop room by the plaintiff. He therefore contended mat there was no forcible dispossession of the plaintiff as alleged. The maintainability of the suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act was questioned by the first defendant by contending that since even according to the plaintiff the shop room was not in, his direct possession but was in the possession of the second defendant as a tenant when the alleged dispossession took place, the plaintiff could not maintain the suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) The court below held that even the landlord of a building which is in the possession of a tenant can file a suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act in a case where the tenant is forcibly dispossessed by another and on the evidence in the case it is clear that there was a forcible dispossession by the defendant entitling the plaintiff to a decree under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act. The court also awarded compensation to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month which was found to be the rent payable by the tenant to the plaintiff. In challenging the decision of the court below in this revision, learned counsel for the defendant contends that the scope of S.6 of the Specific Relief Act has been misunderstood by the court below that the suit ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff and that in any event the decree for compensation for use and occupation in the suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act is not justified. Learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand submitted that there was no reason to whittle down the scope of S.6 of the Specific Relief Act and can confine ,it to actual physical dispossession and that in the circumstances of the case the award of compensation was justified and in any view in view of the interim order of this court while admitting the revision, the contention in that regard cannot be countenanced.

(3.) Though learned counsel for the first defendant attempted to challenge the finding of the court below that there was a forcible dispossession of defendant No. 2 from the building by defendant No. 1 while defendant No. 2 continued as the tenant of the plaintiff, on the materials, I am not satisfied that I would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court below in that behalf. The evidence clearly indicates that the first defendant had forcibly got into possession of the building within six months of the filing of the suit by the plaintiff and if the suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act at the instance of the plaintiff is maintainable the decree of the court below for recovery of possession would be justified. In any view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is any error in the finding rendered by the court below warranting interference in revision especially considering the nature of the suit and the limited jurisdiction of this court in revision in such matters.