ARYA SAMAJ Vs. PRITHVI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Sri Karanpur District, Sri Ganganagar in Suit No. 53/89 by which the suit of the plaintiff filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1963") against the respondents No. 1 Prithvi Raj (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No. 1) and No. 2 Jawahar Lal (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No. 2) was dismissed.

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances :- On 26-7-1989, the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 for recovery of possession of shops No. 8 and 9 situated in Karanpur District, Sri Ganganagar against the defendants (mainly against defendant No. 1) stating inter alia :- (i) That Jagdish Chandra, Advocate (PW-2) was President of Arya Samaj, Sri Karanpur and he had the power to file the suit. (ii) That shops No. 7 and 8, after falling vacant, were given on rent to the defendant No. 2-Jawahar Lal on 25-3-1989 through agreement. (iii) That defendant No. 1 Prithvi Raj was already tenant of shops No. 2 and 4 belonging to the plaintiff for the last 5-6 years and he intended to take shops No. 7 and 8 on rent, but they were not given to him on rent as he was defaulter in payment of rent and because of that fact, the defendant No. 1 Prithvi Raj became angry and he, on 26-3-1989 in absence of defendant No. 2 Jawahar Lal, who was tenant of shops No. 7 and 8, after breaking the. lock, took the possession of these shops illegally and for that, report was also lodged in the Police Station Sri Karanpur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar. (iv) That when Jagdish Chandra (PW-2), President of Arya Samaj, had gone to Punjab, between 11th and 12th April, 1989, the defendant No. 1 Prithvi Raj handed over the possession of shop No. 7 to the defendant No. 2 Jawahar Lal and in place of shop No. 7, he took the possession of shop No. 9 illegally and apart from that, he also extended the shop No. 8 from back side. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 Prithvi Raj had taken the possession of the shops No. 8 and 9 illegally and unauthorizedly and on being, asked by the plaintiff to give back the possession of the shops in question, he refused. Hence, this suit for recovery of possession of two shops No. 8 and 9. The defendant No. 2 Jawahar Lal filed his written statement on 8-1-1990 stating inter alia that since he had already got the possession of shop No. 7 and the criminal proceedings had been dropped, therefore, he had no interest and if the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff, he had no objection. A separate reply was filed by the defendant No. 1 Prithvi Raj on 2-4-1990 stating inter alia that the shops No. 7 and 8 were lying vacant and on 24-3-1989, one Brij Gopal, who was Secretary of Arya Samaj, Karanpur, gave these shops to him on rent and before these two shops were given to him on rent, he was already tenant of shops No. 2 and 4 belonging to the plaintiff. The further case of the defendant No.. 1 Prithvi Raj was that possession of the shops No. 7 and 8 was. never given to the defendant No. 2 Jawahar Lal and therefore, the case of the plaintiff that he took the possession of these shops illegally was wrong one. The further case of the defendant No. 1 Prithvi -Raj was that in order to resolve the dispute between the parties, Brij Gopal, Secretary of the Arya Samaj made a settlement (Ex. A-1) on 16-4-1989 and as per that settlement Ex. A-1, shop No. 7 was given to the defendant No. 2 Jawahar Lal on rent and the shops No. 8 and 9 were given to him on rent of Rs. 300/- per month after breaking the back wall of shop No. 8 and therefore, it was wrong to say that he had been in possession of shops No. 8 and 9 illegally or unauthorizedly. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Thereafter, on 1-5-1991, the learned Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar framed the following issues :- (Matter in vernacular, omitted- Ed.) Thereafter, both the parties led evidence In support of their respective cases. After hearing both the parties and after considering the entire evidence and materials available on record, the learned Civil Judge (SD), Sri Karanpur through impugned judgment and decree dated 18-8-1998 decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, but issues No. 2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff and in view of the findings on issues No. 2 and 3, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 18-8-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Sri Karanpur, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

(3.) In this revision petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner :-: (i) That findings of the learned trial Judge on issues No. 2 and 3 are erroneous on the ground that no doubt defendant No. 1 Prithvi Raj was tenant of shops No. 2 and 4, but he had not paid rent and before he paid the rent, shops No. 7 and 8 were let out to the defendant No. 2 Jawahar Lal and therefore, there was no question that shops No. 7 and 8 Were let out to the defendant No. 1 Prithvi Raj. (ii) That learned trial Judge has wrongly admitted the execution of agreement Ex. A-1 dated 16-4-1989 as according to the plaintiff, Brij Gopal was not Secretary of Arya Samaj and therefore, he was not authorized to make settlement through Ex. A-1. Hence, it was submitted that the findings of the learned trial Judge on issues No. 2 and 3 are wholly erroneous and perverse one and they are liable to be set aside.