ASHOK KUMAR Vs. INDER DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed challenging the judgement and decree dtd. 15/5/2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for possession under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit seeking a decree for possession by breaking the locks alleged to have been put by the defendant-respondent on the main gate of the suit premises, as fully described in the plaint. Further, a declaration was sought to the effect that the defendant-respondent was not entitled to claim the rent @ Rs.30,000.00 per month (rupees thirty thousand) from 19/2/2018 till restoration of possession of the plaintiff-petitioner over the suit premises. The case as set up in the plaint was that the defendant-respondent had a flour mill with automatic machinery but the business had stopped and the electricity supply was disconnected due to non-payment of the bills. The defendant-respondent was willing to sell the machinery of the flour mill and the plaintiff-petitioner expressed his desire to take over the business of the flour mill. The plaintiff-petitioner was alleged to have taken the suit premises on rent from the defendant-respondent @ Rs.30,000.00 per month (rupees thirty thousand) vide rent agreement dtd. 7/2/2017 and paid an amount of Rs.50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) in advance to be adjusted in the future rent. The plaintiff-petitioner further alleged to have paid Rs.50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) by way of cheque on 31/7/2017, Rs.50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) in cash on 30/10/2017 through his mother, Rs.30,000.00 (rupees thirty thousand) on 15/10/2017 and Rs.10,000.00 (rupees ten thousand) on 27/9/2017 and a further amount of Rs.16,000.00 (rupees sixteen thousand). The said amount of Rs.4,74,000.00 (rupees four lakh seventy-four thousand) was agreed to be adjusted in the future rent of the suit premises. Another agreement to sell the machinery was also entered into by the defendant-respondent in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,50,000.00 (rupees nine lakh fifty thousand) on 7/2/2017 and the plaintiff-petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 (rupees two lakh fifty thousand) as part payment. It was further the case set up that the electricity supply, which had been disconnected due to non-payment of the dues, was got restored by the plaintiff-petitioner by paying the amount due. It was further the case that the electricity connection, in the name of the defendant-respondent, was installed in the suit premises on 17/6/2017. It was further the case that the defendant-respondent had forcibly locked the premises on 19/2/2018 by taking the law into his own hands.

(3.) The defendant-respondent filed his written statement denying the averments made in the suit. It was averred that the plaintiff petitioner had only paid Rs.1,00,000.00 (rupees one lakh) to the defendant-respondent and a bill of Rs.3,00,000.00 (rupees three lakh) was due against the defendant-respondent. It was further the case set up that the defendant-respondent had paid an amount of Rs.50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) to the department as the cheque of the plaintiff-petitioner was dishonoured and the next time the plaintiff-petitioner made this payment through demand draft. It was further denied that any lock was put on the suit premises by the defendant-respondent. It was further averred in the written statement that the defendant-respondent had sent a legal notice for revocation of the rent agreement dtd. 7/2/2017 and that the cheques issued by the plaintiff-petitioner to the electricity department as well as to the defendant-respondent towards rent had been dishonoured and a case had been filed in regard to the same.