The triggering point of the cause of action for filing a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is the date of 'dispossession', and the Plaintiff must prove settled possession or forced dispossession within the prescribed time limit.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

C.R.P. 38/2023 & CM APPL. 6253/2023 (delay of 32 days in filing)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the suit for possession filed by the Petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') as well as for permanent injunction. Petitioner before this Court was the Plaintiff before the Trial Court and Respondents herein were the Defendants and parties are referred hereinafter by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of the revision petition, as they emerge from a reading of the plaint are that Plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the first floor of H. No. 7130, Gali Madarse Wali, Beri Wala Bagh, Azad Market, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Suit Property'), consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom and a store at a monthly rent of Rs.800/-, later enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per month by Defendant No.2 in the month of May, 2018 and a Rent Agreement was also executed between Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 for himself and on behalf of his mother. Security of Rs.2,30,000/- was furnished by the Plaintiff along with the Rent Agreement.

3. According to the Plaintiff, he had been paying rent of the suit property to Defendant No.2, from time to time, though no rent receipt was ever issued by Defendant No. 2 in favour of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also got the electricity connection installed separately for his tenanted premises which he claims continues to exist in the name of the Plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff received summons from the Court of the Additional Rent Controller on 16.08.2013 in eviction proceedings filed by Saida Khatoon under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Plaintiff filed an application for leave to defend and appeared on 09.12.2013, on the date of hearing but Ms. Saida Khatoon was not present. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 24.03.2014, on which date Ms. Saida Khatoon appeared with her counsel and sought time to file reply to the leave to defend application.

5. As per the averments made by the Plaintiff, on 26.02.2015, counsel for Ms. Saida Khatoon appeared in the Court of learned ARC and submitted that Ms. Khatoon had received vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises from the Plaintiff. Based on this statement, the eviction petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. It is stated that due to busy schedule of Plaintiff's counsel, he could not appear to inform that the possession continued to be with the Plaintiff and that a wrong statement had been made by Ms. Khatoon. On receiving the news that such a statement had been made in the Court, Plaintiff reached the suit property, where the Defendants attempted to break open the locks and take forcible possession. In the night of 26.02.2015 itself, the Defendants affixed a notice on the outer wall of the suit property stating that possession of the premises had been taken over by the Power of Attorney Holder of Ms. Khatoon. This led to the Plaintiff filing the present suit for possession and injunction under Section 6 of the Act.

7. On receipt of summons, written statement was filed on behalf of Defendants No.1, 3 and 4, while no one appeared on behalf of Defendants No.2, 5 and 6, who were therefore proceeded ex-parte.

8. In the written statement, Defendants took an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that possession of the premises had been handed over to Defendant No.1 peacefully on 21.02.2015 by his wife. The Plaintiff was not a tenant with respect to 1st floor of the suit property but only with regard to one room of 75 sq. yds. in the entire property. The wife of the Plaintiff Ms. Nazia had rented out the property to one Mohd. Mudassir on 19.01.2015, who was in possession and both of them handed over the possession of the suit property to Defendant No.1 on 21.02.2015, which was clearly in