DEVINDER SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading legal representatives of petitioner-Devinder Singh, who is stated to be expired on 06.02.2008 leaving behind his legal representatives as mentioned in para 2 of the application. It is further mentioned that there is no other legal representative of the petitioner (since deceased) except mentioned in the application.

(2.) In view of above, the instant application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The persons mentioned in para 2 of the application are impleaded as legal representatives of the petitioner for the disposal of the instant appeal only. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. C.R. No. 3657 of 2003 Instant civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code ) whereby trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (in short the Act ).

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff filed suit for putting him in possession of the suit property by the process of the Court after evicting the respondent-defendant therefrom. The petitioner had taken the shop in dispute on rent from Sewa Singh, father of the respondent on 01.01.1983 @ Rs. 250/- per month and a rent note was scribed in this regard between the petitioner-plaintiff and father of respondent-defendant. The petitioner had paid the rent to said Sewa Singh, who died about four years ago and after his death, the petitionerplaintiff used to pay the rent to the respondent-defendant being legal heir of Sewa Singh. The respondent had been receiving the rent upto January, 1997 against receipts. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that he is a statutory tenant of the defendant, who had no right to forcibly dispossess him from the shop in dispute. The petitioner has been dispossessed wrongly on the intervening night of December 8th or 9th , 1998 by breaking open the locks of the shop in dispute. His dispossession is forceful and without his consent in spite of the fact that the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala had ordered to maintain status quo by an order passed in a civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner.