Lala Ram vs Shri Dhalji through LRs. and Others

Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned Counsels.

This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff Lala Ram being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dt. 06.03.1995 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

The plaintiff-petitioner Lala Ram claimed that he was tenant of the suit shop at Bheru Ghat, Pali of the defendant Dhalji and others, who forcibly dispossessed him from the suit shop at about 8.00 PM in the night of 28.07.1979 and, therefore, he was liable to be put back in possession u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendant on the other hand claimed that the suit shop was given on rent to the plaintiff Lala Ram on 07.11.1970 at monthly rent of Rs. 10/- which was later increased to Rs. 12/- per month but since his business was not running very well, the tenant voluntarily handed over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the defendant on 14.01.1979 on the day of Makar Sakranti and when they approached him again on 28.07.1979 for payment of arrears of rent, he set up the story of forcible dispossession of him and also lodged an FIR at Police Station on next day 29.07.1979 to avoid the payment of rent and seek repossession of the suit shop.

The learned trial Court by the impugned judgment dt. 06.03.1995 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner Lala Ram finding inter alia that the plaintiff had voluntarily handed over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the defendant on 14.01.1979 and had failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit shop after the said date 14.01.1979 until 28.07.1979 and the photographs of forcible possession of 29.07.1979 were not proved by the plaintiff-petitioner and, therefore, the plaintiff could not be said to have been forcibly dispossessed from the said suit shop in question and, therefore, was not entitled to a decree of repossession u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff Lala Ram has preferred this revision petition before this Court. He had also filed an appeal before the learned District Judge against the said judgment which came to be dismissed by learned District Judge on 11.09.1998 as the said appeal was not maintainable in view of prohibition of maintaining an appeal contained in Section 6(3) of the Act. However, the plaintiff also filed second appeal before this Court which second appeal i.e. S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 389/1998 has also been dismissed by the order of this Court today as no substantial question of law arises and as the present revision petition already filed is being decided on merits.

Mr. Narpat Singh Charan, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner vehemently submitted that on the FIR lodged by the plaintiff against the forcible dispossession of the plaintiff from the said suit shop on 28.07.1979 the competent Court had convicted the defendants for the offence u/s 448 I.P.C. and that conviction was upheld by the learned appellate Court also on 12.07.1994. However, the defendants were released on probation by the learned appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 29/1993. He further submitted that merely because the witnesses, who appeared before the learned criminal Court, could not be produced before the learned civil Court in the present suit filed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the learned trial Court could not have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, who was forcibly removed from the said suit shop on 28.07.1979. He, therefore, prayed for allowing of the present revision petition and setting aside the judgment of the learned trial Court dt. 06.03.1995, the possession of the suit shop to be restored to the petitioner.

On the side opposite, Mr. K.C. Samdariya learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents emphatically submitted that the findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below are not required to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and since the Court below has categorically found that the vacant possession of the suit shop was voluntarily handed over by the plaintiff to the defendants on 14.01.1979, the unbelievable story set up by the plaintiff that he was forcibly dispossessed on 28.07.1979 when the defendants approached him for payment of arrears of rent cannot be believed as the plaintiff had failed to adduce any evidence in support of the same. He further submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove the photographs produced before the learned trial Court to establish the story of the forcible dispossession and, therefore, there was no evidence before the learned trial Court to establish such forcible dispossession. He also submitted that mere repayment of some installment of loan by the plaintiff to the Bank of Baroda vide Exhibit 2 and 3 does not establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit shop after 14.01.1979. The plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence showing the payment of rent to the defendant after 14.01.1979. He also submitted that the conviction in the criminal trial is of no relevance and that does not per se establish the case of the plaintiff of forcible dispossession from the suit shop. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present revision petition.

Having heard learned Counsels and upon perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court and record of the case, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial Court has not erred in rejecting the suit of the plaintiff u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Merely on the basis of conviction of the defendants u/s 448 I.P.C. even though upheld by the learned appellate Court vide order dt. 12.07.1994 as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit shop in question. On 14.01.1979 when the plaintiff voluntarily handed over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the defendants, the fact duly established by the defendants on the basis of evidence before the learned trial Court, it cannot be said that for the FIR lodged on 29.07.1979 which resulted in the conviction of the defendants, it should be presumed that the vacant possession of the suit shop was not handed over to the defendant and on 14.01.1979. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner when that when he was forcibly dispossessed on 28.07.1979 there was outstanding bank loan of Rs. 800/- and he repaid installments of that loan vide Exhibits 2 and 3 does not establish, in the opinion of this Court, the continued possession of the plaintiff after 14.01.1979. The repayment of bank loan is not directly related to the possession of the suit shop in question. The learned appellate Court, therefore, cannot be said to have erred in believing the case set up by the defendant that the plaintiff put his shop items in front of the suit shop on 28.07.1979 and made up this story of forcible dispossession. The defendants by their witnesses had established before the Court below like DW-3 Mangal Chand and DW-4 Dungar Mal that the defendants were doing the business of manufacture of Tilpati after the suit shop was vacated by the plaintiff on 14.01.1979.

Thus, the learned appellate Court cannot be said to have erred in arriving at the findings of fact which he arrived on the basis of evidence before it. The said findings not being perverse are not required to be interfered with or reversed in revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, this revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs