JUDGMENT The applicant filed Short Cause Suit No. 4589 of 1999 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai so as to seek possession in respect of the suit premises on the ground that the applicant was dispossessed on 10.2.1999 from the said premises by the respondent. The said suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court by judgment and decree dated 8.5.2006 dismissed the suit. Hence this civil revision application is filed. 2. Few facts are required to be stated to dispose of this civil revision application. The applicant claims that she is adopted daughter of one Dr. Thakkar and she has been residing in the suit premises along with Dr. Thakkar. According to her, after the death of Dr. Thakkar she was occupying the suit premises and that on 10.2.1999 the respondent dispossessed her in a high handed manner. Since the applicant claims that she was dispossessed in a high handed manner, she filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963 on 23.7.1999 i.e. within six months from the date of alleged dispossession and hence the suit will have to be treated as one which is filed within period of limitation. 3. At trial the applicant, examined herself as P.W. 1 and two other witnesses by name Mr. Bharat P.W. 2 and Mr. Jagdish, P.W. 3. The respondent gave evidence through his Power of Attorney Mr. Vinod who happens to be father of the respondent. The learned trial Judge after going through the record came to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to make out a case that she was in possession in respect of the suit premises little prior to 10.2.1999 and therefore dismissed the suit. The learned trial Judge has dealt with various documents on which the applicant had relied upon and ultimately answered the question of possession against the present applicant. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Lanke appearing on behalf of the applicant took me through the record and submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge that the applicant has failed to make out a case for possession is not proper. According to the applicant, the applicant has produced number of documents which indicate that Dr. Thakkar was in possession of the suit premises and that the applicant is claiming through said Dr. According to the applicant, the applicant has produced number of documents which indicate that Dr. Thakkar was in possession of the suit premises and that the applicant is claiming through said Dr. Thakkar in her capacity as adopted daughter. Learned Advocate Mr. Lanke also relied upon the bank pass book wherein the applicant wanted to contend that she had an account with Dena Bank, Kandivali (East) and the address mentioned in the bank is Ramkrishna Clinic, Dr. Thakkar Bungalow, Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai. It was also sought to be put up by learned Advocate Mr. Lanke that the applicant was in possession of the license issued by the Office of the Sanitary Inspector, Cattle Pound Compound, Ramchandra Lane, Extension, Malad (West), Bombay, to hold a dog and that the license mentioned the address of the suit premises, namely Ramkrishna Clinic (without mentioning the room number). It is the contention of the applicant in the plaint that according to the applicant the suit premises is room no. 9, whereas the respondent is referring to the very suit premises as room no. 7. In the course of arguments, it was pointed out by learned Advocate Mr. Lanke that the room No. 9 is situated on the ground floor whereas room no. 7 is situated on the first floor. It has been the stand of the applicant that the applicant is in possession of the premises which are on the ground floor. Be that as it may. On consideration of the entire record, it is abundantly clear that parties know as to in respect of which premises the suit is filed and it is not necessary for this court to go into the question as regards actual number namely Room No. 9 or Room No. 7. 5. According to learned Advocate Mr. Lanke, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge are wrong inasmuch as according to learned Advocate Mr. Lanke the applicant has proved that the applicant was in possession of the suit premises. Learned Advocate Mr. Lanke, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Judge should have decreed the suit and ordered restoration of possession. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Walwaikar, appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned trial Judge has given a categorical finding that the applicant has not been able to produce documents to show that she was in possession of the suit premises. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Walwaikar, appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned trial Judge has given a categorical finding that the applicant has not been able to produce documents to show that she was in possession of the suit premises. Learned Advocate Mr. Walwaikar tried to submit that at one point of time the applicant rushed into the suit premises by barging into the premises and even a complaint was filed at earlier occasion i.e. sometime on 21.1.1999 and the attempt on the part of the present applicant to enter the said premises had failed on account of the action taken by the police. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Walwaikar further submitted that the documents relied upon by the present applicant do not indicate that on the date of the alleged dispossession she was in possession of the suit premises. Learned Advocate Mr. Walwaikar further submitted that the learned trial Judge has arrived at appropriate conclusion and no interference is required in the impugned order. 8. It was also submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Walwaikar that the suit premises have since been demolished and therefore there is no question of restoration of the possession of the suit premises and to that extent the relief claimed by the present applicant cannot be granted. He also pointed out that as of today at site, a construction activity is going on and it is not fully completed. Learned Advocate Mr. Walwaikar submits that since the restoration of possession is not possible, this court even otherwise cannot pass any order in favour of the applicant so as to see that the applicant is inducted in the tenament in the new building and according to him for this purpose the applicant will have to make out a positive case that she had a legal right to own the said suit premises. Learned Advocate Mr. Walwaikar therefore submitted that the civil revision application be dismissed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the evidence as well as the documents which have been discussed by the learned trial Judge, as also the two documents which were placed before this court, namely the bank pass book in respect of the account held by the present applicant and the dog license on which heavy reliance was placed. 10. 10. At the outset, it is required to .be mentioned that Bharat, P.W.2 was surveyor and his evidence is on record. As it is, it would be of no assistance to the present applicant as that evidence does not speak of anything about the possession by the present applicant. Jagdish, P.W.3 is the person who was a member of an association which protects the interest of animals. His evidence is of course of no use to the present applicant so far as the question of possession is concerned. 11. So far as the case of the present applicant, the oral evidence as regards of possession can be divided into two parts namely documentary evidence and oral evidence. The applicant has placed on record various documents to show that at one point of time Dr. Thakkar was in possession of the suit premises. It is the stand of the present respondent that after the death of Dr. Thakkar on 21.4.1990 his wife Sharda was in possession and after her death, the present respondent has been able to take possession of the suit premises and has been enjoying the suit premises. The documents on which the present applicant has relied upon such as rent receipt and telephone bills, electricity bill etc. stand in the name of Dr. Thakkar. Those documents by itself will not go to show that the present applicant was in possession of the suit premises as of 10.2.1999. The present applicant claims that she is the adopted daughter of said Dr. Thakkar. This contention of the present applicant is not proved, except the bare statement of her. The burden to show that the present applicant was adopted daughter was of high degree and the present applicant has not discharged the said burden. To that extent the applicant has failed. It is pertinent to note that the applicant claims that at the time of so called dispossession her Assistant Mrs. Shitole was present. The applicant has not examined said Dr. Shitole in support of her case that in the presence of Mrs. Shitole the respondent dispossessed the present applicant from the suit premises. It is also the case of the applicant that the said dispossession took place in the presence of Advocate Haldankar. The applicant, for the reasons best known to her has not examined said Dr. Haldankar. In view of non examination of Mrs. Shitole the respondent dispossessed the present applicant from the suit premises. It is also the case of the applicant that the said dispossession took place in the presence of Advocate Haldankar. The applicant, for the reasons best known to her has not examined said Dr. Haldankar. In view of non examination of Mrs. Shitole and Advocate Haldankar adverse inference is required to be drawn against the present applicant. It is also required to be mentioned that after the alleged incident of dispossession on 10.2.1999, the applicant has not filed any police complaint to place on record the case of said dispossession. This is also another factor against the interest of the applicant. The applicant has not examined any other witness to show that she was dispossessed from the suit premises. Her neighbours would have been the best persons who could have deposed on her behalf that the present applicant was residing in the suit premises and that she was dispossessed on a particular date. 12. The applicant has relied upon the license issued in her favour by the Office of the Sanitary Inspector, Cattle Pound Compound, Ramchandra Lane, Extension, Malad (West), Bombay, to keep the dog. It is the case of the present applicant that she was running the business of breeding and training of dogs while remaining in the suit premises and according to her said business was conducted in the suit premises. In so far as the license which is produced before the court, the learned trial Judge has said that the license is for the year 1996-97 and no further license was produced by the present applicant before this Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Lanke produced the license which was even for the subsequent period. If the learned trial Judge has stated in his statement that the license upto 1996-97 were produced, it will not be possible for this court to peruse the licenses which are produced for the subsequent period. Even if it is accepted that the present applicant possessed the license to keep a dog with her, that by itself will not go to show that she was in possession of the suit premises. In my view, the said piece of evidence produced before the court was not sufficient to accept the word of the present applicant that she was occupying the suit premises. 13. In my view, the said piece of evidence produced before the court was not sufficient to accept the word of the present applicant that she was occupying the suit premises. 13. It is also the case of the applicant that the applicant had an account with Dena Bank, Kanedivali (East) Branch, Mumbai. Address mentioned on the bank pass book is Remkrishna Clinic, Dr. Thakkar Bungalow, Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai. It is pertinent to note that the room no where she is staying is not mentioned on the pass book as the address. Even if it is accepted that the premises namely Ramkrishna Clinic, Dr. Thakkar Bungalow has some concern with the suit premises, in my view the document (bank pass book) by itself will not be sufficient to hold that she was in possession of the suit premises. This is so because, no evidence is placed by the present applicant to show that the bank had accepted her address mentioned in the passbook after verification by the bank authorities. 14. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am not inclined to accept the stand of the present applicant that she was in possession of the suit premises on or about 10.2.1999. In my view, the learned trial Judge has arrived at a proper conclusion and has rightly held that she was not in possession of the suit premises. Once it is held that the applicant has failed to show that she was in possession of the suit premises on or about 10.2.1999 her suit under Section 6 for restoration of the suit premises cannot be granted. In my view the same has been rightly dismissed. 15. An important development has taken place after the judgment of the trial court inasmuch as the suit premises have been demolished. It is conceded by the present applicant that the suit premises are demolished after the filing of the civil revision application in or about 2008. 16. It was sought to be contended by learned Advocate Mr. Lanke that the applicant has right in the suit premises and that his client is entitled for an accommodation in the new building which is about to be completed. It is difficult to accept this submission of learned Advocate Mr. 16. It was sought to be contended by learned Advocate Mr. Lanke that the applicant has right in the suit premises and that his client is entitled for an accommodation in the new building which is about to be completed. It is difficult to accept this submission of learned Advocate Mr. Lanke that the present applicant is entitled to have the accommodation in the new premises merely on asking, particularly when the case of applicant that she was in possession of suit premises on or about 10.2.1999 is not accepted. The suit filed by the present applicant was for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. If at all the present applicant wants to claim right in the some premises in the new building, the applicant will have to file suit to establish her ownership right in the suit premises and if she succeeds then the question of putting her in possession of tenament in newly constructed building would arise. The said question cannot be dealt with and answered in this proceeding namely civil revision application challenging an order passed in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision application is required to be dismissed. Hence following order is passed to dispose of this civil revision application. ORDER i. The civil revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is not necessary for this court to grant specific liberty to the applicant to claim right in same premises in the newly constructed building. It will be open for the present applicant to attend to the said question as desires. Application dismissed.