MAHA PARTAP SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' petition filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.3.2005 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent in which prayer was made for restoration of possession of the demised shop on the ground that the suit has been filed within a period of six months of dispossession as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The trial Court after examining evidence in detail has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent succeeded in proving his possession over the demised shop on 8.1.1996 and the suit was filed on 20.2.1996 before the expiry of a period of six months. It has also been proved by him that he was forcibly ejected from the disputed shop by the defendant-petitioners. Accordingly decree has been passed in his favour directing the defendant-petitioners to handover vacant possession of the demised shop to the plaintiff-respondents within a period of three months from the date of passing of the decree. It has further been held that the plaintiff-respondent has been occupying the demised shop as a tenant.

(2.) IN order to prove his case the plaintiff-respondent has brought on record the house tax assessment form of Municipal Council, Shahabad Exs. P-1 to P-5 pertaining to the years 1983 to 1995. Those documents show that the shop was in possession of the plaintiff-respondent as he has been duly recorded in the column of occupier. He has been shown as tenant of Harpal Kaur mother of the defendant-petitioners. Further reliance has been placed on the receipt of licence fee paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the Municipal Council Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-13 which show that he has been doing the business of pan, biri cigarette etc. from the year 1989 to 1996. He has placed on record electricity bill and receipts regarding payment thereof as Exs. P-14 to Ex. P-50 which show his possession over the disputed shop. Apart from the afore-mentioned documents, the plaintiff-respondent also proved on record the receipts regarding payment of rent to late Jugpal Singh (father of the defendant- petitioners) Ex. P-51 to P-75 proving that he has been tenant in the demised shop. Some objection to exhibit these receipts was raised but the objection was over-ruled on account of the fact that signature of Jugpal Singh on these receipts were admitted. The receipts produced by the plaintiff-respondent describe him as 'Maratha' who is the same person as the plaintiff-respondent because in his own statement, the plaintiff-respondent has testified that he used to be known as 'Maratha' in the locality.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel at a considerable length and perusing the judgment of learned Civil Judge, I have reached a conclusion that there is no ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the trial Court. There is ample evidence on record showing that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the demised shop in his capacity as a tenant and that he was dispossessed unlawfully by the defendant-petitioner on 8.1.1996. To that effect even an FIR was lodged on 10.1.1996 bearing FIR No. 8 dated 10.1.1996 under Section 448/427 IPC, Police Station Shahabad. It is well settled that the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are summary in nature which are aimed at discouraging any forcible dispossession by the defendant. However, the requirement of Section 6 is that the plaintiff should be able to prove his settled possession which means that it must be effective undisturbed and to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt of concealment by the trespasser. The aforementioned principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975(4) SCC 518; Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC 702 and Ramegauda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 519 (SC) : 2004(1) SCC 769. It is well settled that a person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect his possession he may even use reasonable force to keep away the trespasser.