Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2183 (PNJ)

Gurmeet Singh Sodhi v. Karnail Singh

2010-08-02

ALOK SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J.:- Petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC, challenging judgement passed by the trial Court dated 29.5.2009, thereby dismissing summary suit of the plaintiff – revisionist under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff has filed suit under Section 6 of the Act saying defendant No.1 rented out 72 sq. yds. out of the suit property to the plaintiff for two months with effect from 1.10.1979 at the rate of Rs.350/- per month; rent note was executed in favour of defendant No.1 by the plaintiff on 13.10.1979; it was agreed that defendant No.1 was to pay the house tax of the said premises; the plaintiff got water Supply connection from Municipal Council, Malerkotla in the year 1981 for bathroom and latrine, which were constructed by the plaintiff with the consent of the defendants for the facility of patients. Thereafter, defendants constructed the back portion consisting of three rooms with ‘Girder Bala’ in the year 1982. In 1985, defendants represented the plaintiff that the defendants are in dire need of money and wanted Rs.10,000/- and requested the plaintiff to take the back portion of the disputed site for the purpose of running the hospital for which the plaintiff paid Rs.10,000/- to the defendants and mortgage deed was executed by defendants No.2 and 3 on 4.9.1985 in favour of the plaintiff for use of the whole of the premises as a hospital. On 22.11.1996, defendants paid the plaintiff the mortgage amount of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter, got the property redeemed and let out the whole of the property including the shop already on rent alongwith the rooms and vacant site measuring 500 square yards @ Rs.3000/- per month. Plaintiff had been paying house tax and water Supply bills and became tenant of the whole of the premises. On 15.5.2009, defendants came to the hospital of the plaintiff and demolished the closed gate of the patient room adjoining the Gita Mandir. Plaintiff filed civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malerkotla. Plaintiff had been paying house tax and water Supply bills and became tenant of the whole of the premises. On 15.5.2009, defendants came to the hospital of the plaintiff and demolished the closed gate of the patient room adjoining the Gita Mandir. Plaintiff filed civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malerkotla. On 18.5.1999, the Civil Judge passed status quo order regarding the suit property but the defendants despite the order of status quo, on 27.5.2009 at about 8.00 AM forcibly took possession of the back portion of the disputed site and disconnected the electricity supply, hence present suit to recover possession. 3. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendants denied that the plaintiff was ever tenant of the disputed property i.e. five rooms and courtyard and was not in possession over the potion from where he claims to have been forcibly dispossessed. 4. The trial Court having examined the entire evidence and material placed on record by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove that he was in possession over the property in dispute and was forcibly dispossessed from the property in dispute on 27.5.1999 and dismissed the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the Court below is against the evidence available on record and further stated that despite of status quo order passed by the Civil Judge in a suit for injunction, the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed on 27.5.1999 in violation of the status quo order and possession should be restored under Section 6 of the Act, application for which was filed within six months from the date of dispossession. 6. I have carefully perused the judgement passed by the trial Court. The trial Court in paragraph 29 of the impugned judgement has held that there is nothing on record which shows that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property after the redemption of the mortgage in 1996. It is further observed by the trial Court that a rent note was executed for another property in 1979, hence it is not possible that no rent note was executed in 1996 when plaintiff says that after redemption the property in dispute was also let out to the plaintiff. It is further observed by the trial Court that a rent note was executed for another property in 1979, hence it is not possible that no rent note was executed in 1996 when plaintiff says that after redemption the property in dispute was also let out to the plaintiff. The trial Court further held that plaintiff failed to prove by way of producing any accounts that he ever paid any rent in respect of the property in dispute. The trial Court further held that the version of the defendants that after redemption in 1996, plaintiff never remained in possession over the disputed property, seems to be correct. 7. On being asked repeatedly by this Court as to what is the document to prove that property in dispute was also let out to the plaintiff after redemption of the mortgage in 1996, learned counsel for the revisionist replied that neither rent note nor any agreement was ever executed and no receipt of rent was issued pertaining to the disputed property and argued that it was an oral tenancy and rent was being paid by the plaintiff regularly to the defendants. This Court is not inclined to accept the explanation furnished by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 8. Once factum of mortgage is admitted and further if redemption of mortgage deed in 1996 is proved, then it was for the plaintiff to prove that in 1996 property in dispute was also let out to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff has failed to prove. Moreover, even if two views are possible, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, view taken by the trial Court should not be disturbed. Order impugned calls for no interference. Revision is dismissed. ---------------