Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.07.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Bathinda whereby suit for possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.

2. Brief facts as gathered from the record are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession of shop which is part of building bearing M.C. No.244 situated at Kamal Cinema Road, Bathinda on the premise that the suit property was owned and possessed by the defendant. Ground floor was taken on rent by the plaintiff/petitioner in the year 1971. Present rate of rent of the shop was pleaded to be Rs.1,000/- per month. From the very inception of the tenancy, plaintiff was carrying on business of barber shop under the name and style of ‘Prem Hair Dresser’. Electricity meter was installed in the shop premises in the name of Ram Kumar cousin of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that he was paying the rent regularly in advance to the defendant-landlord. However, defendant did not issue any receipt. Lastly the advance rent was paid for the month of October 2009 to the defendant on 05.10.2009.

3. It was submitted by the plaintiff that due to increase in rent in the locality, defendant started demanding enhanced rate of rent and the same was refused by the plaintiff as he was prepared only for reasonable enhancement. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant in a well planned conspiracy managed to dispossess him from the shop on 20.10.2009. The son of the defendant along with his friends threatened the plaintiff on the said date and asked him to vacate the premises within two-three hours. Defendant being part of that conspiracy did not respond to the request of the plaintiff and in the evening, with police help the defendant started throwing out the articles of the shop. Allegation of misuse of power by ASI Roop Chand was alleged. Son of the plaintiff was given beatings. ASI Roop Chand took the plaintiff and his son to the police station without any warrant and without there being any order of eviction passed by the competent Court.

4. It was alleged by the plaintiff that his shop was virtually looted by the defendant and others. Plaintiff and his son were kept in illegal confinement and were also given beatings. Even plaintiff and his son were abused in the police station by the defendant along with his son and others. ASI Roop Chand forcibly got signatures of the plaintiff on some blank papers and forms. Wife of the plaintiff also sent telegram to the higher authorities in this regard. Plaintiff remained under shock. After recovering from shock and terror, the plaintiff collected his courage and approached the Police Authorities, but the police did not take any action. Process of the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was invoked for registration of appropriate case. With this background the suit came to be filed.

5. Defendant contested the suit on all counts. Defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that suit was barred in view of provision of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC as the plaintiff himself executed the compromise on 22.10.2009 to the effect that he was willing to vacate the tenanted portion and thereafter handed over the vacant possession to the defendant after having received a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the defendant. Defendant claimed that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non-disclosure of cause of action.

6. After competition of pleadings, trial Court framed the necessary issues.

7. After appraisal of the evidence led by the parties, trial Court adverted to issue No.1 and held that though the person in possession cannot be dispossessed, except in due course of law. Even, though there was no order of eviction passed by the competent Court, but compromise Ex.D-1 effected between the parties on 22.10.2009 was proved wherein a compromise was effected between the parties to the effect that the pla