JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.89 passed by the Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganganagar. In a suit for possession filed by respondent Servjitsingh under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the ground that the suit property which consists of one room was let out on 15.11.77 to one Manmohansingh son of Pyaresingh on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- However the defendant Munnilal, who was tenant in another one room in the suit premises, forcibly dispossessed Man Mohan Singh and took possession of said room on 6.11.77 for which a criminal complaint was also lodged. Ultimately the suit was filed for recovering the possession of the suit property. The trial court found that from the plaintiff's evidence it is proved that the defendant was tenant in the suit premises qua one room only. The plaintiff had constructed a new room which was let out to Man Mohan Singh and that the defendant has dispossessed Man Mohan Singh as alleged. The statement of defendant that he was tenant qua both the rooms has not been found reliable on the ground that defendant has even shown ignorance about the facts relation to litigation concerning eviction from tenanted room which was duly prosecuted by him and decided against, him. In view of aforesaid the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit. 3. In the first instance the petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.89. However appeal was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the clear provision of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on 17.8.93. Hence this revision. 4. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner in the first instance that according to plaint allegation person in possession of suit property was Man Mohan Singh.-In that view of the matter any person who could have been maintained the suit under section 6 of Specific Relief Act was Man Mohan Singh and plaintiff Servjit Singh or his power of attorney holder Yograj had on right to have resort under section 6 of Specific Relief Act. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable. This court has an occasion to consider this contention in Raghuvar Dayal v. Hargovind and another, AIR 1958 Rajasthan 287 in which the controversy had arisen under section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1887 since repealed. The provisions of section 9 in so far as question in controversy is concerned were para materia with section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The court held as under : "A suit for possession under Section 9 of the Act can be brought by a landlord also even when the property is in possession of the tenant. The words used are "dispossessed" and "recover possession thereof". Section 9 is not confined only to those cases where the Plaintiff is in actual possession of the property in suit. Whatever possession the plaintiff has at the date of dispossession, he is entitled to claim in case of dispossession. If a tenant is in possession of the property and being dispossessed therefrom does not care to bring a suit for possession of the property the landlord cannot be shut off from bringing a suit against the trespasser." I am in respectful agreement. 5. It is next contended by learned counsel for :he petitioner that the petitioner was not the tenant. He particularly emphasises that adverse inference against the dispossession of the plaintiff ought to have been drawn from non production of defendant no. 2 Man Mohan Singh as witness. 6. This contention is not well founded. This is a matter of appreciation of evidence which trial court has discharged by taking into consideration every piece of evidence that has come on record. The matter of appreciation of evidence cannot be a subject matter of review in a petition under section 115 C.P.C. Moreover I am in agreement with reason given by the trial court for rejecting evidence led by defendant and affirm conclusion arrived at by the trial court. 7. I find no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******