The court ruled that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act requires proof of dispossession within six months, and the limitation period begins from the date of dispossession, not from the date of knowledge.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for the following reliefs:

"A. Pass necessary orders and directions to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 10.06.2022 in passed by the Additional District Judge-10 (Central District). Ms. Colette Colette Rashmi Kujur, in CS/DJ/ADJ No. 614816/2016 titled as M/s Indraprastha Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s Cardiff Associates Pvt. Ltd.

B. Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner company was inducted as a tenant at the property bearing Municipal no. 10130, at Kalra Chhajju Pandit, Shiddi Pura, Opposite Model Basti, East Park Road, New Delhi, 110005 (hereinafter "suit property"). The suit property was leased by Shri Jai Dev Sharma (since deceased) vide lease deed dated 8th September 1953.

3. The said lease deed inter-alia contained a clause, whereby, the petitioner was permitted to construct buildings, factories or residential quarters. The petitioner was also permitted to demolish the existing structure of the suit property and also sub-let the same.

4. Consequently, the petitioner constructed a heavy-duty cold storage building with insulation to use the suit property as a cold storage. Further, in the year 1989, the petitioner sub-let the suit property to Mr. Om Prakash Gupta and Mr. Subhash Aggarwal vide lease deed dated 1st November 1989, and the suit property was to be run as a godown.

5. In the year 1996, after the death of Shri Jai Dev Sharma, the co- owner, one Mr. Surinder Deo Gaur filed an eviction suit bearing No.RC ARC/0590835/2014, against the petitioner and its sub-tenants under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter "DRC"). The said suit was dismissed in default by the Court vide order dated 25th November 2014. The application for restoration of the said eviction proceeding is still pending before the Rent Controller, Delhi.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 30th January 2016, upon the sub-tenants i.e., Mr. Om Prakash Gupta and Mr. Subhash Aggarwal for default in payment of rent.

7. Further, the petitioner discovered that the suit property had already been sold vide sale deed dated 29th May 2013, to the respondent by Mr. Surinder Deo Gaur.

8. Subsequently, upon being apprised of the sale of the suit property, on 21st March 2016, the petitioner filed a suit bearing CS/DJ/ADJ No. 614816/2016 for possession of the suit property and damages, thereby, pleading that he was dispossessed of the suit property without following the due process of law and the suit property had been locked by the respondent.

9. The learned Trial Court framed eight issues on the basis of the pleadings in order to adjudicate the suit.

10. In its evidence, the petitioner examined two witnesses i.e., Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Director of the petitioner company and Mr. Ajit Singh, whereby the latter testified to the effect that when he visited the suit property on 4th February 2016, the same was found to be in possession of the respondent company. The respondent examined a total of six witnesses before the learned Trial Court, and accordingly, the above said civil suit filed by the petitioner company was dismissed vide impugned judgement dated 10th June 2022.

11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking revision of the impugned judgement.

SUBMISSIONS

(Qua the petitioner)

12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the findings of the learned Trial Court are prima facie devoid of cogent reasons and are contrary to the well settled position of law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.

13. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has acted arbitrarily and erroneously in exercising its jurisdiction while adjudicating th