ATUL CHANDRA BHATTACHARJEE Vs. SATYA GOPAL ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition is preferred against the JUDGMENT & ORDER dated 30.6.94 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia in Title Suit No, 13/87 (T.S. No. 7/85) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Ad.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff took on lease the stall No. 25 from the Town Committee in the name of Defendant No. 4, who is the wife of the plaintiff. The suit premises is northern half of stall No, 25 of Doomdooma Town Committee situated on the Assam Trunk Road. The northern half of the said stall was let out to the Defendant No. 1, Haripada Bhaduri and defendant No.2 Nirmal Bhaduri at a monthly rent of Rs.80/-. The said two tenants named above (defendant Nos.1 and 2) defaulted payment of rent. Therefore Title Suit No. 29/96 has been instituted for ejectment of the said two tenants and the same was decreed on 20.2.79. An appeal being Title Appeal No. 13 of 1979 had been preferred against the decree of the same was dismissed by order dated 27.6.80. Thereafter Execution Case No. 30/80 was instituted. Both the said tenants prayed for time to vacate the premises in question. As the judgment Debtor tenants failed to vacate the premises, the Execution Court issued writ for possession and on execution of the Writ, Nazir delivered the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on 23.7.84. Plaintiff/opposite parties claim is that immediately after delivery of possession plaintiff started his watch shop and closed his shop at 7-30 P.M. on the same day. The defendant tenants on the same night broke the lock and entered the shop house, removed the belongings of the plaintiff. Plaintiff lodged FIR and a case was registered under Section 448/455/456/380/560/34 IPC.

(3.) Against this forceful dispossession by the defendant tenants opposite parties as plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of possession within the period of 6(six) months.