Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the judgment/decree dated 18. 1. 1990, passed by the learned Sub-Judge in Suit No. 793/86, wherein a decree for possession in respect of part of premises bearing No. G-19, South Extension-1, New delhi, was passed in favour of the respondent.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT had filed a suit for possession alleging that he was a tenant in respect of a shop which was half inside the premises bearing No. G-19, South Extension-1, New delhi-and half in the verandah. Respondent/ plaintiff alleged in suit that petitioner had attempted to dispossess the respondent on 12. 7. 1986, which was resisted. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction. An interim order was granted in favour of the respondent, yet the petitioner dispossessed the respondent from the portion of the shop, which fell inside the premises by pushing the same into the verandah by installing a glass in the basement and the portion at the back of his shop. The respondent s shop in question was a tuck-shop which was embedded in the wall with half the portion inside the petitioner s premises.

( 3 ) THE trial court accepted the version of the respondent and held that respondent had been dispossessed from the property without following the due process of law. The suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed holding that the shop, which was earlier half inside the petitioner s premises had been pushed totally outside in the verandah. In these circumstances, the trial court directed that respondent was entitled to the possession of the portion of the respondent s shop so as to bring the tuck-shop half inside the premises and half in the verandah. The possession of the portion of the shop for keeping part of the tuck-shop inside be delivered to the respondent after removing the obstruction, if any, including dismantling of the glass.

( 4 ) ALTHOUGH in the revision petition, number of grounds had been taken. Petitioner during the hearing, confined his submission to the suit under Section 6 of the. Specific Relief Act being barred limitation. The petitioner s argument being that as per the respondent the dispossession took place while constructing the basement on 22. 8. 1986. Petitioner claims that the basement was constructed in the year 1984 and this stood substantiated by payment of compounding fee. This belied the argument of the respondent that dispossession took place while constructing the basement. The basement, as per the petitioner, having been constructed in the year 1984, the suit under Section 6 of the specific Relief Act, filed on 12. 11. 1986, would be barred by limitation.

( 5 ) IT would be pertinent to notice the averments made in the pleadings. The respondent/plaintiff s case, as averred in para 4 to 7 of the plaint was to the effect that petitioner/defendant, in col. lusion with the local police and MCD officials constructed part of the basement and partly damaged the tuck-shop of the respondent. An attempt is said to have been made on 12. 7. 1986 by throwing out the. goods of the respondent from the tuck-shop and to place the glass, which was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. The construction by the petitioner was in violation of the Municipal bye-laws. Respondent was constrained to file a suit for perpetual injunction wherein an interim injunction was granted in his favour, but despite the stay granted, the petitioner, on 22. 8. 1986, illegally succeeded in putting up the glass touching the back of the tuck-shop. This has resulted in the respondent being displaced partly from the original position in which the tuck-shop was situated and the tuck-shop presently was outside the verandah. Reliance was also placed on the site plan, giving the original location of the tuck-shop.

( 6 ) THE stand taken by the petitioner/ defendant in the written statement was that the respondent had no right, title or interest in the property in the suit. It was further denied that respondent was a tenant in any portio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document