(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendants/petitioners against the judgment dated 12.8.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2002 whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of the shop marked with letters ABCD shown red in colour in the site plan located in Khasra No. 1069 and 1066 situated in Upmahal Kasbati Mahal, Village Mehatpur, Tehsil and District Una, (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It is averred that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the shop in question. It is averred that the defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the shop situated in Khasra No. 1052 at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month, but unfortunately the said shop has fallen on 29.7.2000 due to heavy rain and after that the defendant No. 1 had taken the shop on rent across the road just opposite to the shop in Khasra No. 1052 and started his business there. The defendant No. 1 also did not pay the rent from January, 1996 to 29.7.2000. It is averred that the defendant alongwith his supporters took the possession of the disputed shop forcibly on 27.10.2001, about which an FIR No. 570 dated 28.10.2001 under Sections 448/147 IPC has been registered against the defendants. The defendants have no right, title or interest in it and they have been asked to deliver the possession of the suit shop many times, but they flatly refused to accede to the request of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the suit shop without their consent and the rental value of this shop is Rs. 3000/ - per month. The cause of action arose to the plaintiffs on 27.10.2001 when the defendants took the possession of the suit premises forcibly. On these grounds, the plaintiffs prayed that decree for recovery of possession of the shop may be passed in their favour.
(3.) THE replication has been filed wherein the contents of the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed and the averments made in the written statement were denied. On 17.1.2003 the following issues were framed: