RAJ NARAYAN PANDEY Vs. KAMESHWAR THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order and decree dated 31.01.2009 and 09.02.2009 respectively passed by Sub Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 83 of 2000, whereby and whereunder petitioner/defendant has been directed to handover vacant possession of the suit property (fully described in the plaint) to the opposite party/plaintiff.

(2.) It appears that the opposite party/plaintiff has filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession. Plaintiff was tenant under petitioner and was in peaceful possession of the portion of shop bearing No. 56 Kagalnagar Market, Jamshedpur on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. It is further stated that in the month of December, 1999 petitioner came along with his son and others and directed the plaintiff to vacant the shop. The plaintiff further states that when he did not vacant the shop, on 24.12.1999 petitioner disconnected electric supply. Against that plaintiff has filed HRC Case No. 1/2000 in the court of S.D.M-cum-House Rent Controller, Jamshedpur. It is further stated that on 13.02.2000, petitioner/defendant along with others forcibly entered into the suit premises and after breaking the lock threw away all articles and furnitures and forcibly dispossessed plaintiff from the suit premises. It is stated that immediately matter was reported to the police, accordingly Sonari P.S. Case No. 10 of 2000 instituted under Sections 448 & 380 of the I.P.C. It is further stated that since petitioner/defendant forcibly dispossessed the opposite party/plaintiff without following the process of law, therefore present suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, for recovery of possession has been filed.

(3.) The petitioner/defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. According to the petitioner, opposite party/plaintiff was never in possession of the suit premises as a tenant, so the allegation made in the plaint that the petitioner has disconnected electric connection from the suit premises was denied. It is stated that the HRC Case No. 01/2000 filed by the opposite party/plaintiff has been dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner never dispossessed opposite party/plaintiff from the suit premises because he was never in possession of the same. It is stated that the opposite party/plaintiff filed a false case before the police bearing Sonari P.S. Case No. 10 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 280 of 2000, which resulted in acquittal. It is submitted that the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is liable to be dismissed.