HARI SHARMA Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition filed under section 115 CPC, the defendant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.7.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh by which the learned Addl. District Judge has dis,missed the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 15.12.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kapasan in Civil Misc. Case No. 3 of 1995.

(2.) The relevant facts briefly stated are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner was the I ,2nant of the defendant-petitioner in the suit premises. The suit shop was taken by the Plaintiff-non-petitioner from the defendant-petitioner on 28.2.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200.00. At the relevant time, the plaintiff-non-petitioner was doing automobile repairs work in the above premises. In fact, the tenancy is not disputed. It is alleged that on 6.1.1995, when the plaintiff-non-petitioner was doing business in his shop, the defendant-petitioner tress-passed into his shop and forcibly evicted him from the suit premises and his goods were thrown out. The plaintiff-non-petitioner lodged a FIR of this incident at Police Station, I Capasan and a criminal case was also registered and investigation started. The defendant-petitioner was arrested in the above criminal case though he was later on released on bail. Thereafter, the Police made efforts for effecting a compromise between the parties but it could not succeed. The plaintiff-non-petitioner, therefore, filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner under sections 538 & 539 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as also under section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, No. XVII of 1950) in the trial Court. Along with the above suit, the plaintiff-non,petitioner also filed an application u/O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for mandatory as well as permanent injunction.

(3.) It may be stated that the plaintiff-non-petitioner also alleged that while taking the law in his hands, the defendant-petitioner beside evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises also damaged the northern wall. The plaintiff-non-petitioner therefore, prayed that in the special facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff-non-petitioner be put into possession in the above premises and the defendant-petitioner may be asked to repair the damaged wall.