Rajeev Mahajan vs Inderjit Bhatia

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Rajeev Mahajan has filed this revision petition by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar thereby dismissing suit filed by the petitioner u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act against defendant-respondent Inderjit Bhatia for possession of the shop.

Plaintiff-petitioner alleged that he had taken the disputed shop on rent from Krishna Rani wife of late Om Parkash vide rent note dated 13.03.2006 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Said Krishna Rani also filed ejectment petition against the petitioner under Rent Act. The plaintiff tendered rent in the said ejectment petition, which was thereupon dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiff then filed suit for permanent injunction against Krishna Rani and present defendant Inderjit Bhatia, which was pending. During pendency of that suit, on 16.08.2006, the defendant along with some other persons took forcible possession of the disputed shop by breaking open the lock and also committed robbery of cash amount and cloth lying in the shop. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought restoration of possession of the disputed shop by filing suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

The defendant broadly controverted the plaint allegations. It was denied that the plaintiff ever took the shop on rent. It was alleged that Krishna Rani is not wife of Om Parkash. She has no right, title or interest in the disputed shop. The alleged rent note is false and frivolous having no legal force. It has been fabricated by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed shop. Plaintiff has no right, title or interest therein neither Krishna Rani has any right, title or interest in the suit property. Kamla Rani is widow of Om Parkash. Kamla Rani had purchased the disputed shop vide registered sale deed dated 09.04.1975. She sold the same to the defendant, who is now owner in possession thereof. Even Om Parkash had no right, title or interest in the disputed shop. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011, dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

The petitioner has mainly relied on rent note dated 13.03.2006 executed by him in favour of Krishna Rani and also on proceedings of ejectment petition filed by Krishna Rani against the petitioner. However, this evidence is of no value against the defendant-respondent. If petitioner has created this evidence by taking help of Krishna Rani, it does not create any right, title or interest in the suit property in favour of plaintiff-petitioner nor it effects the right, title or interest of the defendant-respondent in the suit property. The rent note is also very suspicious. The rent note is dated 13.03.2006. The plaintiff alleged that the tenancy was created through the rent note w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, recital in the rent note depicts that possession of the disputed shop was allegedly handed over to the petitioner on 13.03.2006. Consequently, it is not explained as to how the tenancy was created w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It is also not explained why the plaintiff-petitioner paid rent for the disputed shop to Krishna Rani from 01.01.2006 till 12.03.2006 i.e. for almost 21/2 months, when possession of the disputed shop was not with the plaintiff during that period. Filing of ejectment petition by Krishna Rani against the petitioner and tendering of rent by the petitioner in that petition cannot be used against defendant-respondent, who was not party thereto.

It is significant to notice that the plaintiff has led no evidence to depict that either Om Parkash was owner or in possession of the disputed shop or his alleged widow Krishna Rani was owner or in possession thereof. Consequently, Krishna Rani could not have created any tenancy of the disputed shop in favour of the petitioner and could not have handed over its possession to him. Added to it, even Krishna Rani has not been examined as witness by the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff has, therefore, been rightly non-suited by the trial court.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that Krishna Rani had made complaint to police, wherein her statement was also recorded. However, the said statement has not been tendered in evidence in the instant suit. Moreover, the said statement cannot be used as evidence in the instant suit without examining Krishna Rani as witness and without affording opportunity of her cross-examination to the defendant-respondent.

Counsel for the petitioner also referred to order Annexure P-4 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar in some other appeal, whereby Krishna Rani along with some other persons was impleaded as legal representative of Om Parkash in the said appeal. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how this order has any bearing on the instant lis. Defendant-respondent was not party to the said order or the appeal, in which the said order had been passed. Consequently, the said order

Annexure P-4 cannot be used against defendant-respondent. Moreover, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that Krishna Rani is widow of Om Parkash, it does not help the plaintiff-petitioner in any manner because the plaintiff-petitioner has miserably failed to prove that either Om Parkash or Krishna Rani was owner or in possession of the disputed shop. Consequently, the plaintiff could not have derived possession of the disputed shop from Krishna Rani, and therefore, the question of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff from the disputed shop by the defendant-respondent did not arise.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The plaintiff-petitioner has miserably failed to prove his case, and therefore, his suit has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.