JUDGMENT 1. - Instant cross revision petitions (1) by defendant and (2) by plaintiff have been filed challenging judgment dated 3.4.2001 of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) (West) Jaipur City whereby civil suit No. 420/97 filed by the plaintiff on 24.1.1996 for restoration of possession was partly decreed. 2. Brief facts are that plaintiff (respondent No. 1 in CRP No. 624/01) filed suit U/s. 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("the Act") seeking recovery of possession of suit premise situated in 1993, Marina Mansion, Ramlalji-Ka-Rasta, Johri-Bazar, Jaipur. It was inter alia averred that three rooms measuring 18 x 10 ft. and two other rooms (1) measuring 10 x 10 ft. and (2) 10 x 9 ft. were let out to plaintiff in 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and there was tenancy between landlord (defendant) & tenant (plaintiff). It was also averred that on 25.7.1995 when his son Deepak visited suit premise, it revealed that there was new gate on the office let out to him and gate lock was also replaced and on inquiry, it was revealed to have been let out to defendant Bhanu Pratap Singh; immediately first information report was lodged and criminal case was registered on 27.7.1995 but when no fruitful results came forward for restoration of possession despite initiation of proceedings U/s. 145 and 146 Cr.PC., so he instituted instant suit U/s. 6 of Act for restoration of possession of suit premises on 24.1.1996 stating that it was within six months from the date of dispossession having taken place on 25.7.1995. 3. Petitioner (defendant) filed his written statement wherein it was inter alia averred that one room measuring 21x9ft. with complete demarcation was let out to plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- which was vacated alongwith peaceful possession whereof being handed over in September, 1991 and which was further let out to defendant Bhanu Pratap in September, 1994 on rent of Rs. 500/- per month but the plaintiff concocted a false story of his son Deepak having come to the suit premises on 25.7.1995 and where revealed that they were dispossessed from suit premises. The defendant further averred that in fact, because of business transaction, plaintiff had to pay Rs. 500/- per month but the plaintiff concocted a false story of his son Deepak having come to the suit premises on 25.7.1995 and where revealed that they were dispossessed from suit premises. The defendant further averred that in fact, because of business transaction, plaintiff had to pay Rs. 1,24,362/- and on inquiry made by defendant for recovery whereof, the dispute arose and this indirect method was adopted in creating evidence to show that they have been dispossessed from suit premises on 25.7.1995 and in criminal complaint, when no recovery was made as referred to in the plaint about goods and in proceedings under sections 145 and 146 CrP.C., after thorough investigation, their case was rejected against which plaintiff preferred criminal revision petition which too was dismissed on 5.11.1996; hence instant suit was instituted for recovery of possession on 24.1.1996. 4. The trial Judge after taking note of allegations made in the plaint and so also written statement initially framed six issues in all but finally only issue No. 2 & 5 were considered for adjudication ad infra: " 2- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 us izfroknh la[;k 2 ls lktdj fcuk fof/kd izfdz;k viuk;s oknh dk tcjy csn[ky dj oknxzLr ifjlj ij uktk;t dCtk dj fy;k vkSj oknh izfroknhx.k ls mDr fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 5- vk;k oknxzLr lEifRr dk ewY;kadu U;wure ,d yk[k :i;s gksus ls okn U;k;ky; ds Jo.kkf/kdkj esa ugha gSA " Taking note of material on record, the trial Court recorded finding that plaintiff was dispossessed from suit premise on 25.7.1995 without any due process of law that only one room measuring 21 x 9 ft. was let out and as regards other two rooms referred to in the plaint, it was finally concluded that since plaintiff failed to give dimensions of the room where they are situated on the first floor, which could be said to be let out - in absence whereof, recorded finding of having dispossessed from one room (supra) and as regards issue No. 5 relating to court fees and suit valuation, the trial Court held that in view of section 41(1) (d) of Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuations Act, 1961 (''Court Fee Act"), as there was relationship of tenant and landlord, Section 28 of the Act has no application and the court fee deposited by plaintiff is in accordance with provisions of Court Fee Act and decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court finally passed decree in favour of plaintiff for restoration of possession of suit premises consisting of one room measuring 21 x 9 ft. vide judgment impugned. Hence, these revision petitions. 5. Counsel for the defendant (petitioner) submits that the trial Court did not consider evidence in right perspective and U/s. 6 of the Act, burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the dispossession was within six months of institution of the suit whereas in the evidence plaintiff (Pw.1) has shown complete ignorance of actual date of dispossession and his son Deepak (PW2) has also deposed in cross-examination that before July, 1995, he went to the suit premises only 21/2 months ago and on 25.7.1995 when went there, found door-lock duly changed and suit premises being let out to defendant Bhanupratap; as such date of actual dispossession as per his evidence was not 25.7.1995 but was only the date of knowledge of dispossession since plaintiff's son Deepak went on 25.7.1995 only when it came to their notice that they were dispossessed and since suit was filed on 24.1.2006 it was not within period of limitation under section 6 of the Act and the trial Court committed serious material irregularity in treating 25.7.1995 as the date of dispossession from the suit premises; as such finding recorded by proceeding on the premise of their dispossession on 25.7.1995 so as to treat the suit within limitation being filed on 24.1.1996 was totally perverse and requires to be interfered with by this Court. 6. 6. Counsel further contended that in the proceedings initiated under section 145 and 146 Cr.PC., complete material came on record and after adjudication, the Additional Collector being competent prescribed authority held that plaintiff cannot be put into possession of suit premises since he failed to place cogent material on record vide its order dated 26.8.1996 (Ex.20) against which criminal revision petition was filed but was dismissed by competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dated 5.11.1996 (Ex.21) and the matter was almost the same but the trial Court has not considered at all o documents (Ex. 21 and 22) which may substantiate that plaintiff was never in possession; as such the remedy which he availed of under section 6 of the Act was not available; and it has completely misread while adjudicating issue No. 2 and as such finding is not legally sustainable and it is manifest error committed by the Trial Court which deserves to be set aside. 7. Counsel further submits that the finding recorded with respect to issue No. 5 about valuation of suit is also not legally sustainable because it was not the case of relationship between landlord and tenant but as alleged in plaint, suit premises were let out to Bhanupratap who was also arrayed as defendant No. 2 as such plaintiff was to deposit court fees under section 28 o of the Court Fee Act and the finding recorded by trial Court under issue No. 5 deserves to be set aside. 8. Contrarily, Counsel for plaintiff respondent supported finding under issue No. 2 and 5 recorded under judgment impugned and further submits that finding of fact has been recorded based on material on record and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 CPC is very limited and the evidence cannot be re-appreciated so as to disturb finding of fact and unless decision of the trial Court is erroneous on the question of law which affects merits of the case of decision is manifestly unjust, this Court is not competent to interfere under limited scope in revisional jurisdiction. 9. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record and finding recorded under judgment impugned. 10. Section 6 of the Act provides for summary and quick remedy for a person who is in possession but is illegally ousted from suit premises without his consent. 9. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record and finding recorded under judgment impugned. 10. Section 6 of the Act provides for summary and quick remedy for a person who is in possession but is illegally ousted from suit premises without his consent. As the remedy under section 6 of the Act is summary one and is intended to restore status co-ante, all questions of title whether of plaintiff or the defendant are out of place in it, and cannot on that account be allowed either to be raised or to be considered. It is a peculiar feature of this kind of suits and distinguishes it from suits of other kinds. 11. Burden lies heavily on the plaintiff who invokes jurisdiction of the court under section 6 of the Act to prove that he was in possession and dispossessed; and such dispossession took place otherwise than in accordance with law and within six months of the suit instituted and no other facts need to be alleged or proved. Section 6 of the Act reads ad infra: "6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.- (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof." It is clear from wording of above section that it provides a summary procedure and quick remedy against dispossession from suit premises having taken place otherwise than due process of law. Basic object behind is no discourage people from taking the law in their own hands, however good their title may be. Basic object behind is no discourage people from taking the law in their own hands, however good their title may be. Question of title is irrelevant in such suit filed under section 6 of the Act and burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his previous possession and dispossession by defendants in due course of law within six months of the suit. 12. Keeping in view settled principles of law laid down by Apex Court and so also by this Court while examining scope of section 6 of the Act, I may first consider objection raised by defendant with regard to issue No. 5 about court fee. Section 41 of the Court Fee Act deals with suits between landlord and tenant and section 41(1) (d) deals with recovery of possession of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord. Section 28 of Court Fee Act deals only with suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act even when there remains no relationship between landlord and tenant. 13. Defendant in their written statement has averred that peaceful possession of rented premises was handed over by plaintiff in September 1991 while as per plaintiff he has been dispossessed from suit premises without any authority of law on 25.7.1995. Indisputably, relationship of tenancy among landlord and tenant was not disputed between the parties - in absence whereof, in my considered opinion, plaintiff has not committed any error in depositing court fee in terms of Section 41(1) (d) of the Court Fee Act, and I do not find any manifest error of law committed by the trial Court while deciding issue No. 5 in favour of the plaintiff. 14. Crucial question arises for determination before this Court is as to whether dispossession has taken place on 25.7.1995, which is crucial date in determination of the issue about suit being filed within limitation or not since suit was filed on last day on which it was going to complete six months on 24.1.1996. 15. As alleged in the plaint, itself, after reference has been made with regard to description of suit premise in para 1, it has been alleged that suit premises were let out in 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15. As alleged in the plaint, itself, after reference has been made with regard to description of suit premise in para 1, it has been alleged that suit premises were let out in 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and a specific mention has been made in para 6 that on 25.7.1995 when plaintiff's son Deepak went to his office in suit premises campus, it came to his notice that door-lock has been changed and hot deliberations took place and immediately he went to lodge first information report which was registered on 27.7.1995 and according to him, suit was filed on 24.1.1996 which is within six months of the date of dispossession from suit premises and in their oral testimony, plaintiff Surendra Rakiyan (Pw.1) in his cross examination admitted that he never visited suit premises in the years 1994 and 1995 and his information of being dispossessed from suit premises was based on intimation by his son Deepak who went to suit premises on 25.7.1995 and on his information it was deposed by plaintiff (Pw.1) in examination-in-chief about dispossession of suit premises and his son Deepak (Pw.2) in cross examination clearly deposed that before 25.7.1995 he visited suit premises some where 21/2 months ago, no details were furnished when he last visited before 25.7.1995 and on his visit on 25.7.1995 he came across that door-lock of suit premises has been changed and thereafter proceeded on lodging first information report for initiating criminal proceedings under section 145 and 146 Cr.PC. and in support of their case some documents were exhibited to show that after September, 1991 correspondence has taken place with Government officials or authority with regard to their address shown of suit premises by which it can be inferred that atleast after September, 1991 they were in possession of suit premises. Contrarily, defendants came into witness box and their oral testimony was recorded of Ashok Kumar (Dw.1), Bhanupratap (Dw.2) and Chandmohan (Dw.3) from whose statements it was established that one room measuring 21 x 9 f:. was let out to the plaintiff who handed over peaceful possession whereof in, September, 1991 and this suit premises was then let out to defendant No. 2 Pratap Bhanu in September, 1994 at monthly rent of Rs. was let out to the plaintiff who handed over peaceful possession whereof in, September, 1991 and this suit premises was then let out to defendant No. 2 Pratap Bhanu in September, 1994 at monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and since the dispute arose between plaintiff and defendant (landlord) with regard to business transaction as a result whereof defendant was demanding a sum of Rs. 1,24,362/- and a story was concocted by plaintiff of being dispossessed from suit premises on 25.7.1995 and this fact was admitted by plaintiff in para 7 of the plaint that suit premises were handed over to defendant No. 2 and for such rood reasons Bhanu Pratap was impleaded as defendant No. 2. From the material on record as to when suit premises was handed over to Pratap Bhanu (defendant No. 2) (Dw.2) and as already stated above, plaintiff (Pw.1) never visited suit premises either in 1994 or 1995, his son Deepak who visited only on 25.7.1995 and according to his son Deepak (Pw.2) as given out in cross examination he had visited suit premises some where 21/2 months before 25.7.1995, which on the basis of evidence on record is crucial date and in fact was the date on which it came to the knowledge of plaintiff's son Deepak and on the basis whereof, proceedings were initiated under section 6 of the Act as they claimed to have been dispossessed from suit premises within six months period which is to be computed for filing the suit from the date of actual dispossession and not from knowledge of their dispossession. Counsel for respondent plaintiff has brought to my notice Section 11 of the Rent Control Act, as per which application can be filed under section 11, if tenant is dispossessed within 30 days of knowledge of dispossession and with the aid of Section 11, Counsel submits that expression "knowledge" might not have been incorporated under the Specific Relief Act but dispossession has to be considered for the purposes of limitation period from the date of knowledge with regard to the suit filed under section 6 of the Act. In my opinion, submission made by Counsel for plaintiff is without any merit. This Court is not competent to incorporate or add anything in legislative wisdom. In my opinion, submission made by Counsel for plaintiff is without any merit. This Court is not competent to incorporate or add anything in legislative wisdom. Legislative intent is very clear to include such cases who have been dispossessed without any due process of law within six months and date of knowledge of dispossession cannot be considered to be a basis for computing period of six months. While invoking Section 6 of the Act, title or their relationship or tenancy is not required to be examined and if one was in possession, may be for any other reasons, if dispossessed, the Court is only required to look into factum of his dispossession and not the title or tenancy relationship. Indisputably, the Trial Court has proceeded to take note of date 25.7.1995 as actual date of dispossession whereas from material on record, it is only date of knowledge of their dispossession which came to the notice of plaintiff's son Deepak when he visited suit premises on 25.7.1995 and particularly in instant case Deepak (POw.2) who actually visited as specifically deposed in cross examination that he has not visited atleast 21/2 months before 25.7.1995 as such actual date of dispossession has not come on record and on the basis of the date of knowledge of dispossession, the trial Court proceeded in holding the suit within six months as the suit was filed on 24.1.2006; such finding with respect to dispossession while deciding issue No. 2 in my considered opinion is not supported by material on record and gross material irregularity has crept in examining suit under section 6 of the Act for restoration of possession, which has to be filed within six months of dispossession. This fact cannot be ruled out that it was plaintiff's own case that possession of suit premises has been handed over to Bhanu Pratap on monthly rent. It further supports that when Deepak visited suit premises it was already let out to Bhanu Pratap; and defendants Ashok Kumar (Dw.1) & Bhanu Pratap (Dw.2) deposed that suit premises. were handed over in September 1994. No prior date of visit to the suit premises was referred to by plaintiff either in plaint or in their oral evidence-before the trial Court and period of six months have been computed from the date of knowledge of their alleged dispossession. were handed over in September 1994. No prior date of visit to the suit premises was referred to by plaintiff either in plaint or in their oral evidence-before the trial Court and period of six months have been computed from the date of knowledge of their alleged dispossession. In this view of matter, finding recorded with respect to issue No. 2 by learned trial Court is not supported by any legal evidence and a manifest material irregularity has crept in and the same is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 16. So far as revision (CRP 1118/01) filed by respondent plaintiff is concerned, only submission has been made that despite finding having been recorded of three rooms being let out while concluding under issue No. 2, suit premises was confined to one room only measuring 21 x 9 ft. In view of what has been observed supra, submission made by Counsel for plaintiff losses its significance. 17. Consequently, civil revision petition 624/01 filed by defendant is allowed. Finding recorded under issue No. 2 vide Judgment and decree dated 3.4.2001 in civil suit No. 420/97 is set aside and accordingly plaintiff's suit alongwith civil revision petition 1118/01 both are dismissed. No order as to costs.Defendant's Revision Allowed - Plaintiff's Revision and Suit Dismissed. *******