( 1 ) IN these proceedings under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908, a judgment of the Learned Trial Judge in the city Civil Court in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has been called into question. The suit has been decreed as a result of which the Respondent has been held to be entitled to the restoration of possession of premises consisting of Stall No. 7 situated on the Ground Floor at Chimna Butcher Street, Null Bazar, mumbai-400 003.

( 2 ) THE father of the Petitioner was the original owner of the suit premises consisting of a stall admeasuring 4 x 5. The owner expired in or about 1960. It is undisputed that from 1960 the respondent was in possession of the premises and conducted business from the stall. According to the Respondent, he was inducted as a licensee and carried on business independently for a period of 45 years dealing in woollen clothes and umbrellas. The case of the Respondent was that he was inducted on a licence fee of rs. 25/- per month which after the life time of the original owner came to be collected by his widow. After the death of the widow of the original owner, the Petitioner, according to the Respondent, recovered a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of security deposit and an amount of rs. 125/- was paid as licence fee. The case of the Petitioner was that the Respondent was employed by his mother and a Nokarnama was executed in that behalf. Thus, according to the Petitioner, the respondent was looking after the business from 1960 until 1977 on behalf of his mother and the licence for the conduct of the business came to be transferred in the name of the Petitioner in January 1977. The Petitioner, however, set up the case that from 1st February 1995 till 31st December 1995, the Respondent was allowed to conduct the business for a period of 11 months on a monthly royalty of Rs. 1,000/- and on a deposit of Rs. 30,000/- which was obtained from the respondent.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, according to the Respondent, he was in continuous possession from 1960 until 1996. According to the respondent, on 19th December 1996, between 9 and 9. 30 p. m. , the petitioner illegally dispossessed him from the suit premises by the use of force. The Respondent lodged a complaint on 20th December 1996, upon which the Petitioner came to be arrested and an offence was registered under Sections 416 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) EVIDENCE was adduced before the Trial Court both on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent examined one Rehmat Ali Khan, P. W. 2 who was carrying on business of selling clothes in the adjoining stall, Stall No. 8. P. W. 2 was 82 years of age. He asserted that the Respondent and his son were conducting business in the premises in question for over 20 yeas and that besides the Respondent, no one else had conducted business from the premises. The Respondent adduced documentary evidence in support of his contention that he was in possession of the suit premises continuously until the time when he came to be unlawfully dispossessed. The documentary material which was produced included Income Tax receipts from 1977 till 1983, receipts in respect of the payment of the Profession Tax from 1977 till 1996 and an LIC premium receipt dated 19th July 1960 in the name of the respondent showing the address of the suit premises.

( 5 ) IN so far as the case of unlawful dispossession is concerned, the Respondent stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 19th December 1996 at about 7. 45 p. m. he and and his son locked the premises and left for home. When he returned to the shop on the next day, he saw that his belongings were placed outside the shop and two locks were placed on the shop. An FIR was thereupon lodged with the Police and a panchanama was drawn. The evidence of the Respondent found support from the testimony of the neighbour Rehmat Ali Khan who deposed that when he was sitting in his shop on 19th December 1996,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document