RAJEEV MAHAJAN Vs. INDERJIT BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Rajeev Mahajan has filed this revision petition by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar thereby dismissing suit filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against defendant- respondent Inderjit Bhatia for possession of the shop.

(2.) Plaintiff-petitioner alleged that he had taken the disputed shop on rent from Krishna Rani wife of late Om Parkash vide rent note dated 13.03.2006 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Said Krishna Rani also filed ejectment petition against the petitioner under Rent Act. The plaintiff tendered rent in the said ejectment petition, which was thereupon dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiff then filed suit for permanent injunction against Krishna Rani and present defendant Inderjit Bhatia, which was pending. During pendency of that suit, on 16.08.2006, the defendant along with some other persons took forcible possession of the disputed shop by breaking open the lock and also committed robbery of cash amount and cloth lying in the shop. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought restoration of possession of the disputed shop by filing suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) The defendant broadly controverted the plaint allegations. It was denied that the plaintiff ever took the shop on rent. It was alleged that Krishna Rani is not wife of Om Parkash. She has no right, title or interest in the disputed shop. The alleged rent note is false and frivolous having no legal force. It has been fabricated by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed shop. Plaintiff has no right, title or interest therein neither Krishna Rani has any right, title or interest in the suit property. Kamla Rani is widow of Om Parkash. Kamla Rani had purchased the disputed shop vide registered sale deed dated 09.04.1975. She sold the same to the defendant, who is now owner in possession thereof. Even Om Parkash had no right, title or interest in the disputed shop. Various other pleas were also raised.