HERMANO DSOUZA Vs. ABELARDO RODRIGUES MEDEIROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against the Order dated 27th July, 1998 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 246/85/a by the Civil Judge S. D. , Margao. By the impugned judgment, order and decree, the trial Court has directed the petitioners to put the respondent in possession of the suit room within a period of one month from the date of the order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed the said suit in terms of the provisions contained in section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as the said Act) complaining that he was the tenant for nine years in respect of Rooms No. 7 situated on the first floor of the building Casa Menezes situated opposite Gandhi Market, Margao and that all of a sudden for no reason, on 20th November, 1985 the petitioners along with their sons and employees in a high-handed manner, entered the suit premises and removed the goods and equipment of the respondent from the suit room and when the respondent questioned about the said acts, he was threatened with dire consequences and thereafter the room was locked along with the staircase door and the respondent was wrongfully restrained of his movements for about one and half hour. The respondent then lodged a police complaint on the very day and the police conducted panchanama on 21-11-85 during which various articles of the respondent were found lying outside Room No. 7. It is further the case of the respondent that when he tried to enter the suit room on 22-11-85 he found that the door leading to the said room was locked and thus the respondent was forcibly dispossessed by the petitioners from the said room without recourse to law.

(3.) AS against this, it is the case of the petitioners that they are running a hotel by name Royal Hotel and the same is lodging and boarding hotel, wherein the petitioners also run a bar and restaurant. It is their further case that their business is not restricted only to the few rooms, but it is being carried out in the entire premises taken on lease by the petitioner No. 1 who is defendant No. 1 in the suit and the petitioners have never sub-let the suit premises to anybody including the respondent. It is their further case that the respondent was lodged in Room No. 7 and lodging charges prevailing from time to time was charged of him. It is their further case that it was the respondent himself with the help of another person removed his articles from the suit room as the petitioners had asked him to occupy another room. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent was in arrears of lodging charges and when the same were demanded, the respondent filed a false police complaint.