KESH KUMAR Vs. RAJU RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.3-A/2011 by the II Civil Judge, Class-II, Kotma, District Anuppur.

(2.) Facts in brief giving rise to filing of this revision are that the petitioner claiming himself to be a tenant in the demise premises, filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act before the Court below for grant of a decree of possession. It was contended by the petitioner that he was inducted as a tenant by the respondent No.2 on the disputed shop, owned by the respondent No.2 where he was running a furniture shop in the name of Vishwakarma Furniture Mart'. It is contended that the petitioner was in possession of the said shop for a period of about 25 years. It is contended that the petitioner was paying Rs.25/- per month as rent of the said shop. He was granted various orders for imparting training in wood crafts to the trainees selected by the local authorities and he imparted the training to said persons. In the intervening night of 2.6.2001 and 3.6.2001, the respondent No.1 unauthorisedly put a lock on the shop and forcefully had taken possession of the shop. When he went on the shop, the respondent No.1 threatened him and asked him to run away or to face the consequences. It is contended that the petitioner tried to pacify respondent No.1 with the help of the reputed citizen of the locality, but when nothing was done, he lodged a complaint in the police also. No action was taken by the police authorities, though the matter was referred to the higher authorities also. Thereafter, an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., for delivery of possession was filed. However, no expeditious action was taken in the said proceedings. Since it was stated that in fact the owner of the shop is respondent No.3, ultimately, the petitioner was required to file the suit for possession.

(3.) The claim made by the petitioner was resisted by respondents and they categorically contended that the petitioner was never inducted as a tenant in the shop. In fact, the shop belongs to respondent No.3, who has purchased the said shop by a registered sale deed from the respondent No.2 way back in the year 1989. The name of respondent No.3 was recorded in the records of right maintained by the municipalities with respect to the said shop. The petitioner was having no place to sit anywhere and in fact, he was making earning by doing the carpentry work from door to door. Thus, in fact to harass the respondents and to grab the shop, such a suit was filed. It was further contended that the suit as framed was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.