GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. RAJENDER VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the defendants, whereas, the respondent is the plaintiff and they will be referred as such in this judgment. The defendants are aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 8.1.1998 passed by Sub Judge 1st class (I), Sirrnaur District at Paonta Sahib whereby the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of possession of the shop in dispute i.e. shop owned by defendants near Bangran Chowk in House No. 80, Ward No.7 as shown in site plan Mark D. As provided under sub -section (3) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) no appeal lies against the impugned decree and judgment passed under sub -section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, the defendants have filed the present revision petition under Section 115C.P.C.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed civil suit under Section 6 of the Act against the defendants on the allegations that he was induced as tenant in the shop in dispute in the month of March, 1992 on a rent of Rs.500/ - per month which was increased to Rs.600/ - per month in July, 1994. According to the plaintiff, when he was forcibly dispossessed from the shop in dispute on 29.3.1997 by the defendants, he reported that matter to the police and FIR No. 135 of 1997 was registered against them under Sections 147,452,448,323 and 506 I.P.C. The police instead of putting the plaintiff in possession of the shop in dispute, attached the same under Section 146 Cr. P.C. and directed to get the claim of possession decided from the competent Court. In this background the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of the shop in dispute under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and asserted that the plaintiff was never inducted as tenant in the shop in dispute. .According to them, defendant No. 1 was in need of money and he mortgaged the shop in dispute for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - in March, 1992 and handed over the possession to the plaintiff. Their further case was that defendant No. 1 had paid the mortgage money to the plaintiff, who had voluntarily vacated the shop in dispute in the morning hours of 29.3.1997 but changed his mind later and tried to re -enter the shop forcibly, which was registered by defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff lodged false complaint with the police. They have admitted that the shop in dispute was ordered to be sealed by the S.D.M. Paunta Sahib under Section 146 CrP.C. and the proceedings under Section 145CrP.C. were pending. The defendants have specifically denied that they had dispossessed the plaintiff and tried to take forcible possession of the shop in dispute. They have also taken the preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the suit, mis -joinder of parties and causes of action, not valuing it properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and also rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.