CR No. 1531 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1531 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 4.11.2009
Bahadur Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus
Narinder Pal Singh ...Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The defendant-petitioner has approached this Court against
the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2009 passed by the trial court
whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed and the defendant was
directed to hand over the vacant possession of the room shown in red
colour marked as EFGH in the site plan attached with the plaint and
situated on the first floor of House No. 2411, Mariwala Town, UT,
Chandigarh, to the plaintiff.
The facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision
petition are that the plaintiff was owner of house No. 2411, measuring
38′ x 27′ (covered area 38′ x 10′) Mariwala Town, Mani Majra,
Chandigarh, consisting of three rooms, one on the ground floor and two
rooms on the first floor. Out of the two rooms on the first floor, one was
in possession of the defendant as tenant and the room marked EFGH
in the site plan was in occupation of one Bans Raj. As per agreement
CR No. 1531 of 2009 -2-
dated 5.5.1998, the plaintiff took the vacant possession of the room
occupied by Bans Raj on 6.5.2008 and put his household articles
therein and locked the same. When the plaintiff came back to Mani
Majra, Chandigarh, he was shocked to see that the defendant had
entered in the said room after breaking the lock without his permission.
The plaintiff reported the matter to the police and DDR No.44 dated
6.5.1998 was recorded in that regard. When no action was taken
against the defendant, the plaintiff made a complaint to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh and on his direction, FIR No. 66
dated 5.6.1998 under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code was
registered against the defendant. The plaintiff apprehending that the
defendant might transfer possession of the room in question to a third
party, filed the suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief
Act.
Upon notice, the defendant filed a written statement raising
various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the alleged sale
deed dated 7.6.1996 and the agreement dated 5.5.1998 were fictitious,
false and forged documents. The plaintiff was never owner of the first
floor of the said house. It was pleaded that the defendant was residing
in two rooms on the first floor of the house for the last more than 15
years and Bans Raj had no concern with the house as he was residing
in Quarter No. 162, Police Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Further, the
defendant was not a party to the said agreement. The other averments
made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit
was made.
CR No. 1531 of 2009 -3-
From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed
the following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the
vacant immediate possession u/s 6 of the
Specific Relief Act pertaining to the property in
dispute? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
3. Relief.”
The trial court on appreciation of the evidence led by the
parties came to the conclusion that the defendant had failed to prove his
tenancy over the room in question, possession of which had been
sought by him. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree
dated 28.2.2009 decreed the suit of the plaintiff, as noticed above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the impugned judgment and decree.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
finding which has been recorded by the trial court is erroneous and
perverse but he could not point out as to what evidence available on
record has not been considered or has been misread by the trial court.
In view of the findings of the trial court and the fact that the
learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the
impugned judgment and decree, this Court does not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.2.2009.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the
same is hereby dismissed.
November 4, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE