PURAN CHAND KHANDELWAL Vs. KEWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, at the request made on behalf of the petitioners, this petition is treated instead of as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking which provision the petition has been filed, instead as a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) because the impugned judgment which is challenged is the judgment of the civil court dismissing the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(2.) The present revision petition is filed impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 4.7.2006 which has dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Petitioners/plaintiffs claimed to have been illegally dispossessed on 6.1.2001 from the suit property being shop no.2, building no.H-44, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is not based on title but is based on possession of the suit property till 6.1.2001 and the petitioners/plaintiffs claim that since they were in peaceful settled possession of the suit property, they could not have been illegally dispossessed by the respondent/defendant by using force on 6.1.2001. The case of the respondent/defendant however was that in the suit property there was one tenant by the name of Sh. B.L. Kalra (referred to as B.L.K. in the impugned judgment). Respondent/defendant had filed an eviction petition against Sh. B.L. Kalra on 21.4.1999 on the ground of subletting of the premises by Sh. B.L. Kalra in favour of the present petitioner no.1. In that petition, Sh. B.L. Kalra appeared and informed the court that he had already handed over possession to the petitioner no.2/plaintiff no.2 through her attorney being petitioner no.1/plaintiff no.1 and thereafter Sh. B.L. Kalra absented himself in the eviction petition proceedings. An exparte eviction decree was passed in favour of the respondent/defendant on 23.10.2000 by the court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Respondent/defendant then filed an execution petition bearing no.61/2000 and when the petitioner no.1/plaintiff no.1 came to know of this he filed objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against execution of the decree dated 23.10.2000.

(3.) After completion of pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-