HABIB AHMED, Vs. MOHAMMED MUSTAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Sec. 115 CPC against the judgment and decree dtd. 7/11/2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Kota in civil suit No. 34/2005, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act for getting possession of the house has been decreed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act for getting possession of house situated in Mokhapada Kota against the defendants and respondent Nos. 2 to 12 in which it was mentioned that plaintiff's father had taken a plot on monthly rent from the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) which was mentioned in the para 2 of the amended plaint and constructed a room on the said plot. After the death of the plaintiff's father, plaintiff was in possession of the disputed premises and he was paying rent of Rs.6.60 per month to defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein). Plaintiff was working on the post of Deputy Ranger with the State Government and his job was transferable. So, he put a lock on house where he kept his household articles. He had paid the rent of the said plot till 1986. The plaintiff wanted to deposit the rent from January, 1987 to December, 1990 but the officials of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) refused to accept the same. They broke the lock of the house and took possession of the same and defendant Nos. 11 to 13 continued to reside there. Officials of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) had no right to take the possession of the house without due process of Law.

(3.) Defendant No. 13 denied the averment mentioned in the amended plaint and mentioned in their counter-claim that due to severe flooding in the year 1982, the disputed plot was in a dilapidated condition. Thereafter, Intezamia Committee invited application from needy people and rented out the said plot to defendant No. 11 (petitioner No.1 herein), father of defendant No. 13 (petitioner No. 2 herein) on monthly rent of Rs.10.00 by the then head of Intezamia Committee and after the permission granted in the year 1984, defendant No. 11 got constructed two rooms and latrine bathroom on the said plot and since then defendant Nos. 11 to 13 were residing there. Disputed premises belong to waqf. Therefore, civil court has no jurisdiction to try it. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.