HARI SHARMA Vs. YASHVANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners -defendants under Sec. 115 of CPC, challenging the order dt. 29.01.1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), in Civil Suit No. 78/94, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff filed under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit under Sec. 6 of the said Act seeking possession of the suit shop from the petitioners -defendants alleging inter alia that the respondent -plaintiff had taken the suit shop on rent in the year 1983 from the petitioner No. 1 -defendant No. 1 and was paying Rs. 300 per month by way of rent. According to the respondent -plaintiff he had started his business of repairing of Television and Radio in the name and style of "T.V. & Radio Doctor" and that he continued to be in possession of the said shop upto October 1993. It was further case of the respondent -plaintiff that in the month of October 1993, he had to visit Ujjain due to his urgent work and had to stay back as his daughter was seriously ill, however during this time, the petitioners -defendants broke open the locks of the suit shop and took away the possession illegally. According to the respondent -plaintiff, he had lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners -defendants on 28.10.1993, and thereafter had filed the suit seeking recovery of possession of the disputed shop. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners -defendants by filing the written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending inter alia that the suit shop was owned by Navneet Sharma only, and the other defendants had no connection with the suit shop. It was further contended that the respondent -plaintiff was working in the suit shop as a job contractor with the permission of the petitioner No. 2 -defendant No. 2 Navneet Sharma, and that the plaintiff was never in exclusive possession of the disputed shop. It was also contended that the suit shop was already sold out by the defendant No. 2 to one Virendra Singh on 29.01.1994, and since then the said Virendra Singh was in possession.

(2.) THE trial Court after framing as many as 8 issues and appreciating the evidence led by the parties, decreed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff vide the judgment & decree dt. 29.01.1999, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned senior counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that though it was alleged by the respondent -plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit shop as tenant, the respondent had failed to produce any rent note or any rent receipt executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent. It is true that there was one registration certificate at Exhibit/1 produced by the respondent -plaintiff, however from the said document alone, it could not be said that the respondent -plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit shop. As against the said evidence, the petitioners -defendants had examined the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2, wherein they had stated inter alia that the respondent -plaintiff was permitted to sit in the suit shop as a job contractor for repairing the Television, Radio, etc., but respondent was never in exclusive possession of the suit shop.