In Section 6 Specific Relief Act suit, plaintiff must prove settled possession on exact dispossession date against specific defence of third-party prior occupation; trial court's perverse ignorance of evidence and assumed admission warrants revisional reversal and suit dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) is invoked for assailing the judgment and order dated 9 December 2022 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay in S.C. Suit No. 3192/2012. The Suit is decreed directing the Applicants to restore possession of suit premises to the Plaintiffs and the Applicants are restrained from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit premises without following due process of law and from disturbing their possession.

2) The case of the Plaintiffs, as pleaded in the plaint, is that Plaintiff No.1 was working with Food Corporation of India Limited and he purchased two premises in the year 1972-73 viz. i) Unit No. 219/8559 for residential purposes and ii) Unit No. 198/7796 for dispensary purposes, both at Kannamwar Nagar No. II, Vikhroli East, Mumbai –400083.

3) Plaintiff No.1 claims himself to be a doctor with qualification of Ayurved Vaidya Visharad and it is claimed that he commenced his dispensary from premises bearing No. 198/7796, which formed the ‘suit premises’. The Defendant is the brother of Plaintiff No.1 and according to Plaintiff No.1, Defendant was educated only upto 5^th standard and was always maintained and looked after by Plaintiff No.1. According to Plaintiffs, the suit premises were purchased by Plaintiff No.1 in name of Defendant as per the family arrangement. However, Plaintiffs always possessed and occupied the same for running the dispensary of Plaintiff No.1. That all maintenance charges in respect of suit premises were always paid by the Plaintiffs. According to Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No. 2 completed his education in Ayurveda and started his practice from the suit premises. That Plaintiff No.2 got married to Plaintiff No.3, who is also a qualified doctor and started her practice from dispensary run in the suit premises.

4) Defendant filed Suit No. 2553/2006 in the City Civil Court seeking recovery of suit premises from the Plaintiffs. The Plaint in that suit was returned and the Defendant filed suit in the Small Causes Court being L.E. Suit No. 131/177/2009 seeking recovery of suit premises from Plaintiffs. According to the Plaintiffs, on 28 November 2011, they closed dispensary at about 9 pm and thereafter Defendant broke open lock between 10pm to 11pm and took forcible possession of the suit premises. Plaintiff No.1 approached the local police station to lodge a complaint on 29 November 2011, but the Complaint was not registered. On 30 November 2011, Plaintiffs approached the police station again without receiving any positive response. Plaintiffs addressed a written complaint for taking action against the Defendant in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3964 of 2011 in this Court.

5) In the above background, Plaintiffs filed Suit No. 1017/2012 in this Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of possession of suit premises. The suit was filed on 9 April 2012 complaining about dispossession on 28 November 2011. Due to change in the pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court and was renumbered as S.C. Suit no. 3192 of 2012. The suit was resisted by Defendant by filing Written Statement claiming inter alia that Plaintiffs were not running the dispensary in the suit premises, and that one Cosmos Prime Projects Ltd (Cosmos) was found to be o