JUDGMENT

1. The Municipal Board. Kotdwara, district Pauri Garhwal, through its Executive Officer filed this writ petition challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Landsdown, Pauri Garhwal, decreeing the suit under Section 6/38 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession over the disputed house from which respondent no. 3 was forcibly evicted by the Municipal Board. The petitioner also challenged the judgment of the revisional court of the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal affirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif.

2. The facts of the case are not disputed. Admittedly, respondent no. 3 occupied quarter no. 1/1, Devi Road, Kotdwara as a tenant of Municipal Board at monthly rent of Rs. 20. A notice dated 16/23786 terminating tenancy of respondent no. 3 was issued by the petitioner. The notice was replied by respondent no. 3 on 4986. The petitioner is said to have locked the premises in dispute on 191986. A notice dated 17th September, 1986 was sent by registered post to the respondent no. 3 by petitioner for evicting him by 25th September, 1986. The petitioner, Municipal Board, in absence of the respondent no. 3, broke open the lock and illegally took over possession of the disputed quarter along with household goods kept there. The respondent no. 3 had filed a Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1986 before the learned District Judge challenging the notice for eviction served on him. The learned District Judge disposed of the Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1986 by order dated 22101986 holding the appeal was not maintainable.

3. The respondent no. 3 thus filed the suit on 8487 in the Court of Munsif, Landsdown, Pauri Garhwal under Sections 6 and 36 of the Specific Relief Act after serving the petitioner with a notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The respondent no. 3 in his plaint pleaded that Municipal Board, petitioner, served a notice dated 1691986 illegally and evicted him on 25986 and illegally took over possession of the accommodation in question and household goods kept therein. The respondent stated that he was illegally evicted by force without following due precess of law. Some time was bona fide consumed in prosecuting the aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1986 before the District Judge. After the learned District Judge disposed of the said Misc. Appeal as not maintainable, the respondent no. 3 served the statutory notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act to the petitioner before filing the suit.

4. The Municipal Board, petitioner, contested the suit on the grounds of:

(i) the suit was barred by Limitation:

(ii) no notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act was necessary for the plaintiffrespondent no, 3 for filing the suit under Sections 6 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act ; and

(iii) the respondent no. 3 is not entitled to get benefit of S. 14 Of the Limitation Act.

5. These were the main points urged and convassed before the Court' of Munsif in suit and the District Judge in revision and both the courts concurrently held that the suit was filed within time and the time consumed in prosecuting the Misc. Appeal under legal advice bona fide is liable to be excluded and he is entitled for benefits of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged the same submissions before the Court also. The learned counsel for petitioner urged that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act could be filed within a period of six months from the date of his dispossession as contemplated under Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act itself. He states that the respondent no. 3 on his own showing was evicted on 191986 the date on which lock was put at the premises in question by the Municipal Board, He suggested that at the most on 25986 when respondent no. 3 removed his goods from the accommodation or he was forced to vacate the premises would be the date for cause of action for filing suit. The limita