SUDARSHANA DEVI Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25 -5 -1991 passed by the learned Sub -Judge 1st Class (Court No. 2), Shimla in Case No. 60/1 of 1987. By the impugned judgment the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent herein under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) Admittedly the plaintiff -respondent was in occupation of the premises in dispute as tenant on payment of monthly rent. According to the plaintiff he was dispossessed forcibly from the possession of the suit premises in the first week of April 1987. The dispute between the parties is regarding the manner in which the plaintiff was dispossessed as according to plaintiff he was in occupation of the suit premises till April 1987 and he was dispossessed thereafter as stated above by the defendants by force. Whereas, according to the defendants -petitioners, the plaintiff sold away his tenancy right to one Vinod Kumar Sood and his brother for due consideration and also handed over the possession to said Vinod Kumar Sood and his brother in November 1986. Defendant No 2 who was at the relevant time in the village, knowing about the alleged illegal action of the plaintiff, came to Shimla and found said Vinod Kumar Sood in possession of the premises in dispute. It has further been alleged by the defendants that Shri Vinod Kumar Sood and his brother asked defendant No 2 to create tenancy of the premises in their favour which was refused. Thereafter due to the intervention of some persons Shri Vinod Kumar Sood and his brother delivered the possession of the suit premises to the defendants in the third week of March 1987 and thereafter they are in possession of the suit premises.

(3.) The learned trial Court by a reasoned judgment and after considering the entire evidence on record came to the clear finding that the plaintiff -respondent was dispossessed as alleged in April 1987 by the defendants -petitioners without taking due course of law and as the plaintiff was illegally dispossessed, the suit was decreed