Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 517 (MP)

Kesh Kumar v. Raju @ Rajkumar

2012-05-09

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2012
JUDGMENT : This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-10-2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 3-A/2011 by the II Civil Judge, Class-II, Kotma, District Anuppur. 2. Facts in brief giving rise to filing of this revision are that the petitioner claiming himself to be a tenant in the demise premises, filed a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act before the Court below for grant of a decree of possession. It was contended by the petitioner that he was inducted as a tenant by the respondent No. 2 on the disputed shop, owned by the respondent No. 2 where he was running a furniture shop in the name of 'Vishwakarma Furniture Mart'. It is contended that the petitioner was in possession of the said shop for a period of about 25 years. It is contended that the petitioner was paying Rs. 251- per month as rent of the said shop. He was granted various orders for imparting training in wood crafts to the trainees selected by the local authorities and he imparted the training to said persons. In the intervening night of 2-6-2001 and 3-6-2001, the respondent No. 1 unauthorisedly put a lock on the shop and forcefully had taken possession of the shop. When he went on the shop, the respondent No. 1 threatened him and asked him to run away or to face the consequences. It is contended that the petitioner tried to pacify respondent No. 1 with the help of the reputed citizen of the locality, but when nothing was done, he lodged a complaint in the police also. No action was taken by the police authorities, though the matter was referred to the higher authorities also. Thereafter, an application under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, for delivery of possession was filed. However, no expeditious action was taken in the said proceedings. Since it was stated that in fact the owner of the shop is respondent No. 3, ultimately, the petitioner was required to file the suit for possession. 3. The claim made by the petitioner was resisted by respondents and they categorically contended that the petitioner was never inducted as a tenant in the shop. In fact, the shop belongs to respondent No. 3, who has purchased the said shop by a registered sale deed from the respondent No. 2 way back in the year 1989. 3. The claim made by the petitioner was resisted by respondents and they categorically contended that the petitioner was never inducted as a tenant in the shop. In fact, the shop belongs to respondent No. 3, who has purchased the said shop by a registered sale deed from the respondent No. 2 way back in the year 1989. The name of respondent No. 3 was recorded in the records of right maintained by the municipalities with respect to the said shop. The petitioner was having no place to sit anywhere and in fact, he was making earning by doing the carpentry work from door to door. Thus, in fact to harass the respondents and to grab the shop, such a suit was filed. It was further contended that the suit as framed was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. 4. The Court below framed the issues and recorded the evidence of parties. In the evidence of the petitioner, he examined himself as PW/1 and few persons as Mohd. Qayyum, Amarlal, Rajkumar Teerath Ram, Vaidhnath Pandey, Jitendra and R. K. Soni. All these persons including the petitioner have contended that the petitioner was running the shop, but exact location of the shop could not be proved. The petitioner himself has admitted in the Court's statement that he came to know that Jai Narayan, the respondent No. 2, has sold the shop to respondent No. 3. The exact date on which the shop was let out to petitioner was not mentioned. The fact relating to specific dispossession was not proved. He was not in a position to explain as to where the signboard of the shop of the petitioner was fixed. He could not explain as to how he was making the payment of rent. On one hand, he admitted that he could know about the fact of transfer of the suit shop in favour of Ravikant, the respondent No. 3 by Jai Narayan, on the other hand, he said that he could know about this fact when he examined the record of the Court below. When a question was asked by the Court whether at any time Ravikant has let out the shop to the petitioner, he categorically replied that the shop was let out by Jai Narayan and not by Ravikant. When a question was asked by the Court whether at any time Ravikant has let out the shop to the petitioner, he categorically replied that the shop was let out by Jai Narayan and not by Ravikant. Upon his own showing, by deed of transfer Ex.P/26, it is clear that the shop was purchased by Ravikant on 17-3-1989 and if the shop was taken on rent after that, in fact Jai Narayan, the respondent No. 2, was not the person who could have inducted the petitioner as tenant in the said shop. 5. The other witnesses examined by the petitioner could simply stated that they have taken training in the shop, but where that particular shop is situated and whether any certificate is issued in their favour, could not be stated by them. In rebuttal to this, the respondent No. 1 himself was examined and in support of his statement, one Sudhir Tiwari was also examined. The respondent No. 2 was also examined as a witness and he categorically contended that he never put the petitioner as tenant in the said shop. The respondent No. 3 was examined as a witness and he categorically contended that he never put the petitioner as a tenant in the shop. 6. After marshalling the evidence, the Court below has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has completely failed to prove that he was ever inducted as tenant in the said shop nor he was ever dispossessed on 2-6-2001 or 3-6-2001 as claimed. The Court below has given a definite finding that the effective date of dispossession could not be proved by the petitioner as he could not prove that he was ever since in lawful possession of the suit shop. The findings have been recorded by the Court below that if the respondent No. 3 had purchased the suit shop on 17-3-1989, how could it be let out to the petitioner on any date after this by Jai Narayan, the respondent No. 2. Thus, it was held that the petitioner has completely failed to prove his case and, as such, the suit was dismissed. 7. Thus, it was held that the petitioner has completely failed to prove his case and, as such, the suit was dismissed. 7. Further, if the petitioner could not establish the alleged dispossession from the shop in suit within six months from the date of filing of the suit, the provisions of section 6 of the Act aforesaid would not be attracted at all nor such a suit would be maintainable. From the entire evidence, only this much could be proved by the petitioner that a complaint was made in the police with respect to the alleged dispossession from the suit premises in the intervening night of 2-6-2001 and 3-6-2001, but the said complaint was closed as after investigation, no offence was found to be committed. It is contended that since such order of closure of the case was challenged and the Sessions Court has directed investigation on the said complaint, it cannot be said that in fact the petitioner was not dispossessed on the date as alleged. It is to be seen that specially when the petitioner has failed to prove the fact that he was put in lawful possession of the suit shop by the real owner of the shop, alleged dispossession was of no consequence and as such, the suit itself was not maintainable under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. If from this particular aspect, the findings recorded by the Court below are examined, no perversity is found. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put great emphasis on the evidence and has contended that various documents were produced by the petitioner, which were not looked into by the Court below and erroneous finding was recorded. However, after going through the evidence and the documents produced by the petitioner, duly exhibited, it is clear that from none of the documents, the petitioner could demonstrated that shop was let out to the petitioner by the real owner of the shop. Such a claim of the petitioner could not have been accepted at all as has rightly been done by the Court below. In view of the aforesaid, there is no case made out to interfere in the findings recorded by the Court below. No jurisdictional error committed by the Court below is found and, as such, the revision is devoid of any substance. 9. The revision being bereft of any merit, is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, there is no case made out to interfere in the findings recorded by the Court below. No jurisdictional error committed by the Court below is found and, as such, the revision is devoid of any substance. 9. The revision being bereft of any merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.