PHILIP KAITAN Vs. RAMKISHANCHAND WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEAD the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 6-12-2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik in Regular Civil Suit No. 284 of 2000 whereby the petitioner has been directed to put the respondent in possession of the suit premises.

(3.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision of this case are that the respondent herein, claiming to have been put in possession of the suit premises pursuant to lease granted in respect thereof by the petitioner for a period of 18 months commencing from 29-10-1999 on monthly rent of Rs. 500/-, complaining of dispossession therefrom otherwise than in due process of law therefrom by the petitioner on 2-5-2000 filed the suit for restoration of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It was the case of the respondent that though premises were let out for residential purposes as they were not fit to be used for that purpose he was permitted to use the same as godown by the petitioner and accordingly the suit premises were being possessed by the respondent since October, 1999. It was his further case that on account of paucity of funds to complete the construction work the petitioner agreed to sell the suit premises to the respondent for consideration of Rs. 3 lacs under an agreement dated 1-11-1999 and pursuant thereto the petitioner did not claim rent in respect of suit premises from the respondent after october, 1999. On 10-5-2000 when the respondent had been to the suit premises to fetch building material stored therein, to his surprise, he saw that the lock put by the respondent to the suit premises was broken open and replaced by new lock by the petitioner after his trespassing into the suit premises. He thereupon came to know that the acts of trespass on the part of petitioner in the suit premises had taken place on 2-5-2000 on which day the respondent was dispossessed from the suit premises by the petitioner otherwise than due process of law. The respondent therefore filed said suit on 3-10-2000 claiming restoration of possession under section 6 of the Specific relief Act. The suit was contested by the petitioner denying the claim of the respondent including in relation to the agreement referred to by the respondent claiming the same to be bogus. It was the case of the petitioner that the possession of the suit premises was never with the respondent and the allegation regarding dispossession of the respondent from the suit premises were totally false. It was the case of the petitioner that the premises were all throughout in possession of the petitioner. Dispute was sought to be raised even in relation to the market value of the suit premises and therefore the valuation clause in the plaint contending that the market value of the suit premises is more than Rs. 5 lacs.