Judgment : (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.) The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Kota in civil suit No. 34/2005, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for getting possession of the house has been decreed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for getting possession of house situated in Mokhapada Kota against the defendants and respondent Nos. 2 to 12 in which it was mentioned that plaintiff’s father had taken a plot on monthly rent from the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) which was mentioned in the para 2 of the amended plaint and constructed a room on the said plot. After the death of the plaintiff’s father, plaintiff was in possession of the disputed premises and he was paying rent of Rs. 6.60/- per month to defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein). Plaintiff was working on the post of Deputy Ranger with the State Government and his job was transferable. So, he put a lock on house where he kept his household articles. He had paid the rent of the said plot till 1986. The plaintiff wanted to deposit the rent from January, 1987 to December, 1990 but the officials of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) refused to accept the same. They broke the lock of the house and took possession of the same and defendant Nos. 11 to 13 continued to reside there. Officials of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) had no right to take the possession of the house without due process of Law. 3. Defendant No. 13 denied the averment mentioned in the amended plaint and mentioned in their counter-claim that due to severe flooding in the year 1982, the disputed plot was in a dilapidated condition. Thereafter, Intezamia Committee invited application from needy people and rented out the said plot to defendant No. 11 (petitioner No.1 herein), father of defendant No. 13 (petitioner No. 2 herein) on monthly rent of Rs. Thereafter, Intezamia Committee invited application from needy people and rented out the said plot to defendant No. 11 (petitioner No.1 herein), father of defendant No. 13 (petitioner No. 2 herein) on monthly rent of Rs. 10/- by the then head of Intezamia Committee and after the permission granted in the year 1984, defendant No. 11 got constructed two rooms and latrine bathroom on the said plot and since then defendant Nos. 11 to 13 were residing there. Disputed premises belong to waqf. Therefore, civil court has no jurisdiction to try it. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues:- 1- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 yxk;r 10 }kjk oknh ds edku dks tcju [kkyh djds] izfroknh la[;k&11 yxk;r 13 dks dCtk lHakyk fn;kA oknh fookfnr edku dk dCtk iqu% izkIr djus o 200@&:i;s izfrekg dh nj ls vUroZrh ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k fookfnr edkukr efLtn dh lEifRr gS vkSj oknh fdjk;snkj Fkk\ 3- vk;k U;k;ky; dks Jo.kkf/kdkj ugha gS\ 4- vk;k U;k;ky; 'kqYd ,oa okn ewY; de gS\ 5- vk;k fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 27-10-93 dk okn ij D;k izHkko gS\ 6- vuqrks"kA 5.To prove his case, plaintiff got examined Mohammed Mushtak as PW-1, Mohammed Aafak as PW-2 & Ahmad Hussain as PW-3. To prove their case, defendants got examined Mujeeb as DW- 1, Jahid as DW-2, Habib Ahmad as DW-3 & Akhlaq Hussain as DW-4. 6. After hearing both the parties, trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and held the plaintiff entitled to get the possession of disputed premises which was mentioned in para 2 of the plaint within two months from the date of decree. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that judgment and decree dated 07.11.2012 passed by the trial Court is absolutely illegal and is contrary to the facts and Law because trial Court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. In the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, it is essential that the suit should be filed within six months from the date of eviction. In the present suit, plaintiff failed to prove that when he was evicted from the disputed premises. In the first plaint, the date of eviction was mentioned as 16.12.1990. In the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, it is essential that the suit should be filed within six months from the date of eviction. In the present suit, plaintiff failed to prove that when he was evicted from the disputed premises. In the first plaint, the date of eviction was mentioned as 16.12.1990. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, plaintiff had not paid the rent from January, 1987. He was not residing there. So, it was not proved that he was ever evicted. As per the evidence of the defendants, the disputed premises was in deteriorating condition on account of flood. So, it was taken by the Intezamia Committee because the plaintiff had not paid the rent since 1987. Despite the notice, he had not given the possession. It was handed over to defendant No. 11 where he got raised construction and residing there with his family. He also submits that present property belongs to waqf. So, civil court had not jurisdiction to try it. So, the petition filed by defendants be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2012 passed by the trial Court be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that trial Court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. 10. It is an admitted position that plaintiff had to prove the specific date of his eviction as to when he was evicted. As per the contention of the plaintiff, plaintiff was not residing there and he had not paid the rent since January, 1987. No specific date of eviction was proved. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court wrongly came to conclusion that he was evicted six months before filing of the plaint. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition filed by the defendants is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2012 passed by the trial Court is set aside. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.