GURMEET SINGH SODHI Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC, challenging Judgment passed by the trial Court dated 29.5.2009, thereby dismissing summary suit of the plaintiff - revisionist under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff has filed suit under Section 6 of the Act saying defendant No. 1 rented out 72 sq. yds. out of the suit property to the plaintiff for two months with effect from 1.10.1979 at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month; rent note was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff on 13.10.1979; it was agreed that defendant No. 1 was to pay the house tax of the said premises; the plaintiff got water Supply connection from Municipal Council, Malerkotla in the year 1981 for bathroom and latrine, which were constructed by the plaintiff with the consent of the defendants for the facility of patients. Thereafter, defendants constructed the back portion consisting of three rooms with 'Girder Bala' in the year 1982. In 1985, defendants represented the plaintiff that the defendants are in dire need of money and wanted Rs. 10,000/- and requested the plaintiff to take the back portion of the disputed site for the purpose of running the hospital for which the plaintiff paid Rs. 10,000/- to the defendants and mortgage deed was executed by defendants No. 2 and 3 on 4.9.1985 in favour of the plaintiff for use of the whole of the premises as a hospital. On 22.11.1996, defendants paid the plaintiff the mortgage amount of Rs. 10,000/- and thereafter, got the property redeemed and let out the whole of the property including the shop already on rent alongwith the rooms and vacant site measuring 500 square yards @ Rs. 3000/- per month. Plaintiff had been paying house tax and water Supply bills and became tenant of the whole of the premises. On 15.5.2009, defendants came to the hospital of the plaintiff and demolished the closed gate of the patient room adjoining the Gita Mandir. Plaintiff filed civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malerkotla. On 18.5.1999, the Civil Judge passed status quo order regarding the suit property but the defendants despite the order of status quo, on 27.5.2009 at about 8.00 AM forcibly took possession of the back portion of the disputed site and disconnected the electricity supply, hence present suit to recover possession.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendants denied that the plaintiff was ever tenant of the disputed property i.e. five rooms and courtyard and was not in possession over the potion from where he claims to have been forcibly dispossessed.