SUKHJEET SINGH Vs. SIRAJUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant/applicant has called in question the defensibility of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1999 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 211-A/96 whereby the said learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff/non-applicant preferred under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The facts as have been undraped are that the house of the defendant is situated adjacent to the lane of Sharma Tent House in Rajendra Nagar. There are two blocks in the said house and the plaintiff is residing in the South Block on payment of Rs. 250/- per month. It is stated that the tenanted premises include two living rooms, one kitchen and one veranda. In the other room the defendant resides. In Dec.1994 marriage ceremony of the defendant was to be held for which he requested the plaintiff to handover the possession of the part of premises with an assurance that he would deliver back the possession after the marriage ceremony was over. Though, one and half month had elapsed the defendant did not hand over the possession back to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has been dispossessed without due process of law, and therefore, he is entitled to get back the possession as per Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) The defendant filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not residing as a tenant in the south block. It is pleaded that Aziz Khan was residing in the disputed premises which include one living room and a kitchen and he was paying Rs. 250/- per month towards rent. It is further putforth that another room and kitchen was taken on rent by the mother of Aziz Khan from the deceased, Harbhajan Singh, and she vacated the premises as a result of which Aziz Khan illegally occupied the same and was paying Rs. 250/- per month towards rent. It is further set forth that the plaintiff was in illegal possession of one kitchen and one room. The defendant disputed plea of taking over of possession during the time of marriage. It was also put- forth that the plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed premises. It was also denied that she was forcibly dispossessed. It was further pleaded that the premises in question is a joint family property and it belonged to Late Chahadsingh and after his death it became the joint family property of his legal representatives and all the co-owners have not been made parties.