A person claiming through a person who has been dispossessed may file a suit for recovery of the possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

1. - The petitioner original defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has filed this revision petition against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Munsif, Bikaner in Civil Suit No. 132/87 dated April 25, 1991 : The respondent plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, alleging that the defendant had taken possession of the rented, residential premises unlawfully and, therefore, the plaintiff be restored the possession of the same. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died. Hence his son Bherondan joined himself as legal representative and heir of the deceased and continued the suit. Similarly the original defendant Mulidevi also died during the pendency of the suit. Hence Suraja Devi and Asulal have been joined as defendants. The petitioner defendant appeared in the suit and resisted the same on facts as well as on law points.

2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed from the premises in question. The trial Court passed judgment and decree dated April 25,1991 directing the defendant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question within a period of two months from the date of the judgement. It is against this judgment and decree that this revision petition has been filed.

3. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had taken the premises on rent before about 40 years for Rs. 2.50 per month. That rent was increased to Rs. 20/- in the month of February, 1979. Thereafter, the landlord wanted to raise the rent to Rs. 100/- per month, but the plaintiff did not agree. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and paid the rent in Court. Thereafter, in the month of May, 1984 deceased Tejmal (original plaintiff) had gone to Bikaner for some social work. He had called his son Bherondan at Bikaner, as he had fallen sick. Bherondan had left for Bikaneron May 28, 1984. Taking advantage of absence of deceased Tejmal and Bherondan, in the night of May 28, 1984, the defendant took possession of the premises and put her lock. When Bherondan returned on May 29, 1984 he found lock on the premises. On enquiry he came to know that landlord had taken forcible possession of the premises on May 28, 1984. Thereafter, deceased Tejmal informed police but nothing fruitful happened. He had also filed criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (I Class), Bikaner. Ultimately, he filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on July 13, 1995 for restoring his possession.

4. The petitioner defendant appeared in the suit. The petitioner admitted the fact that Tejmal was tenant of the suit premises. It was the case of the defendant that on the night of May 28, 1984 deceased Tejmal and his son Bherondan had voluntarily handed over the possession of the same. In the written statement the plea is also taken that the market value of the premises in question is Rupees 30,000/-, therefore, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit.

5. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiff forcibly from the premises in question on 28-5-84;

2. Is it that the market value of the premises in question is Rs. 30,000/- and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit;

3. Is the Court fee paid is insufficient?

The trial Court held that the defendants had forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed the plaintiff from the premises in question in the night of May 28, 1984. As regards the issues pertaining to Court-fee the trial Court held that no evidence was led by the defendant on this issue and no provision of law was pointed out to show that the valuation put by the plaintiff was insufficient. It is against this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court that this revision petition is filed by