The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a plaintiff to prove possession of the premises within six months prior to the institution of a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order and decree dated 8th February, 2013 of the Civil Judge, Delhi of dismissal of a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession filed by the two petitioners/plaintiffs namely Raj Aggarwal and Nikhil Aggarwal against the six respondents.

2. Notice of the petition was issued.

3. The order dated 17th October, 2014 in this petition records that respondents No. 1&2 namely Shashi Jain and Vijender Jain had been served. The subsequent order dated 11th March, 2015 records that none had appeared for respondents No. 1&2 despite service. The subsequent order dated 16th December, 2013 records that the respondent No. 3 Memo Devi had refused to receive service and that the respondent No. 4 Gian Wati had been served but none had appeared on her behalf. None appeared for the respondents No. 3&4 thereafter also. The order dated 11th March, 2015 records that respondents No. 3&4 were ex-parte before the Trial Court also. Vide order dated 11th March, 2014, the respondents No. 1 to 4 were proceeded against ex-parte. The respondents No. 5&6 namely Jitender Kumar Jain and Sukhmal Kumar Jain appeared in response to the notice and have filed a reply to the revision petition. However today when the matter is called out, none appears for the respondents No. 5&6 as well. The respondents No. 5&6 are also proceeded against ex-parte and the counsel for the petitioners has been heard. The Trial Court record requisitioned vide order dated 17th October, 2014 has been received and perused.

4. It was the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the plaint (i) that one Hazaro Devi was the owner of property No. 2294-2295, Gali Paharwali (Bari), Dharampura, Chandni Chowk, Delhi; (ii) that Hazaro Devi died on 5th January, 1979 and the six respondents herein are the heirs/successors of heirs of Hazaro Devi; (iii) that Nem Chand Jain son of Hazaro Devi and predecessor of respondents No. 5&6 namely Jitender Kumar Jain and Sukhmal Kumar Jain let out one shop in the aforesaid property to the two petitioners/plaintiffs at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- (iv) that the petitioner No. 1, after taking the shop on rent, with the assistance of her father-in-law was running a Halwai shop in the shop; (v) that the said Halwai shop was run from 1985 to 1987-88, since when it was lying closed; (vi) however rent was being continuously tendered to Nem Chand Jain; (vii) that after the death of Nem Chand Jain on 13th August, 1997, the rent though tendered, was not received owing to a dispute between the then heirs of Hazaro Devi; (viii) that though the shop was lying closed (as the husband of the petitioner No. 1 was employed in a Bank) but the petitioner No. 1 used to visit the same regularly and last visited the shop in February, 2006 when she also tendered rent to respondent No. 1 herein i.e. Shashi Jain daughter of Hazaro Devi (at this stage attention of the counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has been drawn to page 17 of the paper book where Shashi Jain is not mentioned as daughter of Hazaro Devi); (ix) that when the petitioners/plaintiffs visited the shop on 9th May, 2006 they found that “construction/ addition/alteration was being done in the suit premises” and that the respondents (i.e. all the six respondents) had illegally taken over the possession of the shop and had merged the shop earlier in the tenancy of the petitioners/plaintiffs with an adjoining shop.

5. The respondents No. 1&2 i.e. Shashi Jain and her husband Vijender Jain in their written statement, while denying the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs, took a stand that the petitioners/plaintiffs are in collusion with the respondent No. 3 Memo Devi (daughter of Hazaro Devi), respondent no. 4 Gian Wati and respondent no. 6 Sukhmal Kumar Jain. The respondent No. 5 Jitender Kumar Jain, the respondents No. 5&6 Jitender Kumar Jain and his brother Sukhmal Kumar Jain also