SUBHASH SAMBHASHIV BONA PAWAR Vs. KANTABAI SAMBHAJI LANDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25th February, 2004 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parbhani in R.C.S. No. 169 of 2000.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed R.C.S. No.169 of 2000 in the Court of 2nd Jt. C.J.J.D., Parbhani against the present petitioner ' original defendant claiming recovery of possession of shop admeasuring 9'x15' situated in Plot No.112, Ward No.13 of Sadguru Nagar, Parbhani. It was contention of the respondent ' original plaintiff in the said suit that the defendant is owner of the suit property. The plaintiff had obtained STD-PCO for the purpose of running the said business. Accordingly the plaintiff occupied one shop i.e. suit property from the defendant on the basis of tenancy in the year, 1995. The rent of the suit shop was settled at Rs.500/- per month and since the date of occupation till October, 1999 she had regularly remitted the rent to the defendant. However, the dispute started by the defendant on the ground that payment of rent was not made by the plaintiff. It is further stated that in the month of November, 1999 the defendant on one or the other ground started obstructing in peaceful possession of the plaintiff and started threatening to vacate the suit premises. The defendant is serving in M.S.E.B. The plaintiff was constrained to file the R.C.S. NO.351 of 1999 for perpetual injunction against the defendant. It is further stated that taking undue advantage of the situation of the plaintiff, during pendency of the said suit, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit shop without adopting lawful procedure.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no forcible dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff in the suit. The proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are of summary nature. There is no provision for awarding damages. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the fact that in absence of any cogent evidence brought on record by the plaintiff, the learned Judge has passed the order awarding damages. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, perverse findings are recorded by the Court below while awarding damages. It is further argued that when the plaintiff and her husband, on their own, consented for vacating the premises and on the relevant date when they left the suit premises voluntarily with all belongings, it cannot be said that there was forcible dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant. On the contrary, the defendant is put to loss by not receiving the rent of about one year by the plaintiff. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the averments and grounds taken in the revision application and submitted that in view of the un-controverted pleadings in the revision application and also on merits, the civil revision application deserves to be allowed.