VIDYA DEVI Vs. SALOCHNA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by some of the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 17.6.2002 passed by the trial Court vide which the suit filed by Hari Krishan, Plaintiff, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed and a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with a direction to the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present Revision Petition are that Hari Krishan, plaintiff, had filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Act, 1963 against the defendants. It was alleged in the said suit that the plaintiff was a tenant over the shop in dispute under the defendant and their predecessor -in -interest on monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - since 1.2.1987 and was in possession thereof since then. It was alleged that on 29.3.1996 defendants No.1 to 3 had attempted to dispossesses the plaintiff from the said shop forcibly and had demolished a part thereof and had started throwing water in the shutter of the shop and had blocked the pipe of the roof so as to divert the flow of water in the shutter of the shop. It was alleged that thereupon the plaintiff had filed a suit against he said defendants for permanent injunction and in the said suit defendants No.1 to 3 had agreed to maintain status quo on 2.4.1996 and subsequently defendants No.1 to 3 had agreed to remove the debris and the other material form the roof on 19.8.1996 and on 1.10.1996 defendants No. 1 to 3 had undertaken that they would not dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed shop forcibly or illegally whereupon the plaintiff had withdrawn the said suit. It was alleged that thereupon Harish Chander Bhatnagar, predecessor -in -interest of the defendants, filed an ejectment petition against the plaintiff on 26.5.1997 in which the plaintiff was served and had filed a reply and the said petition was still pending. It was alleged that in January, 1998 said Harish Chander Bhatnagar had expired and the said shop was inherited by the defendants, being the widow, sons and daughter. It was alleged that on 26.1.1998 defendants No.1 to 3 along with some gundas had forcibly entered in the shop and had started throwing the goods and other articles on the road from the said shop and the plaintiff was pushed out from the shop by defendants No.1 to 3 and the gundas. It was alleged that the plaintiff had gone to the Police Station and lodged a report with the police and under the influence of the defendants the police did not take any action for some time and allowed the defendants and the gundas to throw the goods from the shop. It was alleged that after throwing the goods on the road the defendants had locked the shop in question and it was only thereafter that the police visited the spot and by that time defendant No.1 to 3 and the gundas had left the spot and the police had registered a case against them. It was alleged that the dispossession of the plaintiff from the shop in question by defendants No.1 to 3 on 26.1.1998 was illegal and as such the plaintiff was entitled to recover the possession of the said shop from the defendants. It was accordingly prayed that decree for possession in respect of the shop in question be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The said suit is dated 27.2.1998 and was filed in the Court on 4.3.1998, i.e. within six months from the date of dispossession, which was stated to be 26.1.1998.

(3.) The said suit was contested by the defendants by filling a written statement admitting that the plaintiff was in possession of the said shop as a tenant since 1.12.1987 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ -. It was denied that on 29.3.1996 the defendants had attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the dispute premises. However, it was alleged that a rent deed was executed on 1.121987 for two years and thereafter the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the shop without making payment. It was alleged that the plaintiff had dragged the defendants in unnecessary litigation in respect of the earlier suit, since the defendants had demanded rent from the plaintiff. It was denied that on 26.1.1998 the defendants had forcibly occupied the premises. On the other hand, it was alleged that in fact on 26.1.1998 arrived at between the parties and at the request of the plaintiff the entire arrears of rent were exempted and the plaintiff himself took the articles from the shop and handed over the possession of the same to defendant No.1 in the presence of the persons from the locality. It was alleged that after having vacated the shop and taken his articles from the shop the plaintiff made a false complaint against the defendants with the police with a view to harass them and to take revenge from them. It was denied that forcible possession was taken from the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was also paid Rs. 10,000/ - for vacating the said shop besides giving him exemption from payment of arrears of rent. It was alleged that since the period of rent deed dated 1.12.1987 had expired the plaintiff was illegally in possession of the same till it was vacated by him.