Important point
Just because counsel in High Court thought fit to argue on one point only, right of appellant to reiterate case put forward in trial Court is not lost so long as there was no concession or admission by appellant or his counsel.

Judgment

Srinivasan, J.-Leave granted.

2. It is very unfortunate that a summary suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 by the respondent herein has been dis­posed of by the trial Court without understanding the law relating to such suits. Besides, the trial Court has also overlooked material evidence on record raising some erroneous pre­sumptions. Moreover, the trial Court has granted a relief in the decree which could not have been granted in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and which was not in fact prayed for by the respondent in his plaint. The judgment of the High Court in revision petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 115 C.P.C. is no better. It has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court without con­si­dering the aforesaid matters. We have no hesitation to point out at this stage that the judgments of both the courts are totally unsatis­factory if not perverse. As the litigation has already been pending for more than 13 years, it is not proper to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Hence, we have gone through the entire evidence on record by perusing the original record ourselves for disposing of these appeals finally.

3. The respondent herein filed suit No. 557/86 on the file the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi against the appellant and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from dispossessing him from the tuck shop in prem­ises No. G-19, N.D.S.E. Part-I, New Delhi-110049 and occupying the same and constructing anything on the same in any way. That suit was filed on 14.7.86. In the body of the plaint it was alleged that on the night of 12.7.1986 the defendant No. 1 therein with the help of local police threw the entire goods of the plaintiff from the tuck shop in the verandah and started constructing basement and covering the tuck shop of the plaintiff’s place with the glass which was refuted and objected to by the plaintiff but the local police had not helped the plaintiff and the officials of the Municipal Corporation had also sided with the appellant herein in raising the illegal construction, violating building bye-laws and without prior permission of the Corpo­ration. It was also alleged that the action of the defendants in raising the illegal construction and forcibly removing the plaintiff from the premises and converting the tuck shop into their private room and basement was altogether illegal, arbitrary and without any justification of any kind whatsoever. In Paragraph 10 of the said plaint it was expressly stated that the cause of action for filing that suit arose on 12.7.84 at night. There was an application for an ad interim injunction pending that suit. The Court granted an order of ex parte injunction and also appointed a local commissioner to report after inspecting the premises. The commissioner submitted his report which did not mention anything about any construction activity being carried on at that time. It did not also mention that the tuck shop of the respondent herein or any part thereof was inside the premises of the appellant. On 29.9.86, the Court passed an order of injunction restraining the appellant herein from disturbing the possession of the respondent till the disposal of the said suit. That suit is said to be still pending.

4. Even before the order of injunction was passed on 29.9.86, the respondent herein filed an application on 11.8.86 before the Addition­al Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging disconnection of electricity by the appellant to the said tuck shop. An interim order was passed by the Additional Rent Control­ler, Delhi directing the appellant to restore the electricity to the said shop. That order was confirmed on 19.8.86 without going into the question on merits as to whether the respondent was a tenant under the appellant. Against the order directing restoration of electricity, an appeal was preferred by the appell