The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on evidence to determine entitlement to possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present Revision Petition is filed under section 115 CPC seeking to impugn the decree/order dated 25.8.2014 passed by the trial court under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act regarding property No. C-63, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, Delhi and other connected reliefs. It was contended in the plaint by the respondent that on 21.2.2012 he entered into a lease for a period of five years w.e.f. 1.3.2012 to 28.2.2017 from the owner of the suit property Shri Kuldeep Sharma vide registered lease agreement dated 21.2.2012 (Ex.PW1/2) duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar. It is further stated that pursuant to the lease agreement the said Shri Kuldeep Sharma handed over vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent. The receipt-cum-possession letter dated 6.3.2012 is Ex.PW1/3. It is further stated that after taking peaceful possession of the property, the respondent got it cleaned for the purpose of renovation and whitewashing. He did not shift immediately. He went out to fetch an electrician, plumber and painter after locking the premises. When he returned at 1:00 PM he found that someone had put a lock over his lock on the main entrance of the suit property. He is said to have called the police at 100 No. On enquiry by the police it was revealed that the second lock had been put by the petitioners.

2. The petitioners filed their written statement. It was stated in the written statement that the petitioners and Shri Kuldeep Sharma are real brother/sister. The said property was allotted to the mother Smt.Shakuntala Devi by Slum Department, DDA, New Delhi. The property measures 27sq.yards. It was claimed that there was another brother Shri Mange Ram who died on 4.9.2009. The mother Smt.Shakuntala Devi died on 19.05.2006 intestate. It is stated that the petitioner and Shri Kuldeep Sharma are joint owners in possession of the said property being the legal heirs of Smt.Shakuntala Devi.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession as has been prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as has been prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff to decree of recovery of Rs.36300/-? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled any damages/compensation amount of Rs.One lakh as has been prayed for? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 3% per month on the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- till restoration of the possession? OPP

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable as it does not disclose any cause of action? OPD 7 Whether the suit is maintainable as the plaintiff is not approached the court with clean hands and guilty for concealing and material facts? OPD

8. Whether the suit is not maintainable as proper court fees has paid and suit valuation is done? OPD

9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and its effect thereof? OPD

10. Relief.

4. The parties led their evidence. Respondent/plaintiff led his evidence as PW-1. Smt.Radha Rani w/o Shri Kuldeep Sharma was examined as PW-2, the concerned officer from the Sub-Registrar’s office was examined as PW-3 Shri Chaturbhuj Shukla, and Mr.Charanjit was summoned from the court of MM was examined as PW-4. The petitioner examined herself as DW-1.

5. I may note that before this court the only argument that has been raised by the parties centers around issue No.1, namely, as to whether the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to a decree of possession, as prayed for.

6. The trial court by the impugned order noted that the lease agreement has been established by the testimony of PW-3, the receipt-cum-possession letter has also been proved as Ex.PW1/3 and Smt.Radha Rani PW-2 who is a witness to the documents has in her evidence identified her signatures on Ex.PW1/2 and