DHAPOOBAI Vs. NARAINLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal under Section 100 CPC directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil judge, Udaipur dated November 29, 1978 by which he reversed the judgment and decree dated October 20, 1976 passed by the Munsiff, Udaipur. 2 The plaintiff (tenant) instituted a suit on September 10, 1971 against she defendants (Landlords) who are the legal representatives of Bhaironlal original landlord for possession in respect of a shop from which he was alleged to have been illegally dispossessed on June 16, 1969. The case of the plaintiff was that he was tenant -in -possession of a shop situate at Moti Chohatta at Udaipur on a monthly rent of Rs. 12/ - per month and that the landlord disposses him by throwing out his goods. As he was not able to obtain possession though he initiated proceedings under Section 144, CrPC he instituted the suit for getting back its possession. He also prayed that goods mentioned in Schedules A and B may also be restored to him. The defendant landlord resisted the suit on various grounds One of the grounds was that the plaintiff tenant had surrendered the tenancy and voluntarily delivered possession of the shop one month before the alleged date of dispossession i.e. May 16, 1969. Another plea taken was that the suit of the plaintiff -tenant was time -barred for it was not instituted within a period of six months from the date of dispossession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act The learned Munsiff, Udaipur by his judgment dated October 20, 1976 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the learned Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur amongst others, found: 1. That the suit for possession was within limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 though it was beyond, six months, and

(2.) THAT the possession was not delivered by the plaintiff voluntarily before the alleged date of dispossession.

(3.) THE show cause notice was ordered to be issued by me on January 4,1979 and in pursuance of that, Mr. R C. Maheshwari appeared for plaintiff -respondent.