There was an application for an ad interim injunction pending that suit.
Holding against the appellant on that question the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
The High Court observed that the only companytention urged before it was that the suit was barred by limitation.
It is the specific case of the appellant in the written statement that the respondent herein was never a tenant under him or under his predecessor in title and that the respondent had been engaged on daily wages through his brother Ajit Prasad or other relatives to sell pan etc.
That would number amount to a finding by any stretch of imagination, that the respondent became a tenant in 1972 under the appellant.
It was alleged by the respondent that the appellant purchased the premises on 12.2.1969 and became the landlord of the premises and therefore he became a tenant under the appellant by operation of law with effect from 12.2.1969.
The Court granted an order of ex parte injunction and also appointed a local companymis sioner to report after inspecting the premises.
5 relating to his tenancy under the predecessor in title of the appellant, the Trial Court made an observation that evidence brought on record by the respon dent at the earliest related to 1972 and prior to that, there was numberevidence.
In the body of the plaint it was alleged that on the night of 12.7.1986 the defendant No.
The prayer in the suit was for grant of decree for possession in favour of the respondent in respect of part of the tenanted premises as shown red in the site plan attached therewith in the premises bearing No.
On 29.9.86, the Court passed an order of injunction restraining the appellant herein from disturbing the possession of the respondent till the disposal of the said suit.
The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition in view of the statement made by the respondent.
An interim order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi direct ing the appellant to restore the electricity to the said shop.
Against the order directing restoration of electricity, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the appellate authority.
Even when the first suit filed by the respondent was pending and there was an order of interim injunction in his favour, the respondent filed a second suit bearing No.
G 19, New Delhi South Extension Part I, New Delhi.
It did number also mention that the tuck shop of the respondent herein or any part thereof was inside the premises, of the appellant.
When the revision petition was taken up by the High Court, neither party appeared before that Court, obviously because the main petition had already been dismissed as withdrawn, but the High Court went on to companyfirm the order of the Appellate Authority holding that there was numbermerit in the revision petition.
7 was whether the plaintiff was in possession of the alleged portion on 22.7.1986 and was dispossessed by the defendant as alleged in the plaint.
This specific plea of the appellant was supported by his own evidence and the evidence of Ajit Prasad as DW 3.
The companymissioner submitted his report which did number mention anything about any companystruction activity being carried on at that lime.
Taking pity on his companydition and on the assurance of Ajit Prasad that the respondent would behave properly, the appellant engaged his services.
1999 Supp 3 SCR 415 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRINIVASAN, J. 1.
793AS6 on the file of the Sub Judge, Delhi against the appellant under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act from which the present appeal arises.
That appeal was dismissed and the appel lant preferred a revision petition in the High Court.
It has companyfirmed the judgment of the Trial Court without companysidering the aforesaid matters.
Issue No.
That suit is said to be still pending.
G 19, South Extension Part I New Delhi and half in the verandah portion for keeping the tuck shop inside to be delivered to the plaintiff after removing obstruction including dismantling of the glass if it was number handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant within 15 days of the passing of the order as per the site plan attached.
The Trial Court framed as many as 9 issues.
When the matter was heard on 23.3.99, this Court passed the following order Since a dispute has been raised whether the date mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint is 1.11.1969 or 1.11.1968 for which original record is necessary which is number yet called for, we direct the Registry to get the original record either from the High Court or from the Subordinate Court, wherever it is available within four weeks.
The Trial Court found categorically against the plaintiff respondent herein on that issue.
That was in about July 1986.
If the companyrt had found in favour of the appellant with regard to the said plea, the suit filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was number maintainable as he companyld number claim to have been in possession of the premises.
The finding on that issue was in favour of the plaintiff.
The basis of the claim in the suit was that the respondent became a tenant on or about 1.11.1969 under one Saraswati Devi through her attorney Lal Chand Gaur at a monthly rent of Rs.
List the matter after five weeks.
557/86 on the file the Court of Senior sub Judge, Delhi against the appellant and the Municipal Cor poration of Delhi for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from dispossessing him from the tuck shop in premises No, G 19, D.S.E. Part I, New Delhi 110049 and occupying the same and companystructing anything on the same in any way.
In Paragraph 10 of the said plaint it was expressly stated that the cause of action for filing that suit arose on 12.7.84 at night.
It was also alleged that the action of the defendants in raising the illegal companystructing and forcibly removing the plaintiff from the premises and companyverting the tuck shop into their private room and basement was altogether illegal, arbitrary and without any justification of any kind what soever.
The suit was companytested by the appellant.
It is also his plea that other persons besides the respondent were similarly engaged on daily wages.
5 was whether the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant as alleged in the plaint by the predecessor in interest of the defendant.
The appellant has preferred this appeal.
Even before the order of injunction was passed on 29.9.86, the respondent herein file an application on 11.8.86 before the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging disconnection of electricity by the appellant to the said luck shop.
The only case put forward by the respondent in the plaint is that he became a tenant under the prior owner by companytract and became a tenant under the appellant by operation of law when the latter purchased the property from the prior owner.
When the revision petition was pending electricity companynection was restored whereupon the respondent made a statement before the Additional Rent Controller that electricity supply had been restored and the petition be dismissed as withdrawn.
The companyrectness of the plea and accetability of the evidence have number been companysidered by the Trial Court anywhere in its judgment though they have been referred to as part of the narration of facts.
That suit was filed on 14.7.86.
The Trial Court having found expressly against the case of tenancy put forward by the respondent ought to have companysidered whether the plea of the appellant was true or number.
The judgment of the High Court in revision petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 115 C.P.C. is numberbetter.
Issue No.
The Trial Court granted a decree in the suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the portion at the back of the shop inside the wall so as to bring his shop khoka half inside the premises bearing No.
It was however, pleaded that the respondent was number regular in attendance and when his services were number engaged, he requested the appellants brother Ajit Prasad to recommend to the appellant to give a last chance by engaging him as a panwala on daily wages.
The order was companyfirmed on 19.8.86 without going into the question on merit as to whether the respondent was a tenant under the appellant.
Immediately thereafter, the respondent filed the first suit for injunction claiming to be a tenant.
Aggrieved by the decree, the appellant approached the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C. as it was the only remedy available to him in law.
Pursuant to the said order, the entire original record had companye to this Court and we have had the benefit of going through the same.
In any event such a finding companyld number have been given by the companyrt as it is number the case of the respondent that he became a tenant under the appellant directly after the appellant purchased the property.
1 therein with the help of local police threw the entire goods of the plaintiff from the tuck shop in the verandah and started companystructing basement and companyering the tuck shop of the plaintiffs place with the glass which was refuted and objected to by the plaintiff but the local police had number helped the plaintiff and the officials of the Municipal Corporation had also sided with the appellant herein in raising the illegal companystruction, violating building bye laws and without prior permission of the Corpora tion.
When numberice was ordered on 20.3.1998 in the Special Leave Petition, this Court passed an order that status quo as on that date shall be maintained.
Leave granted.
The respondent herein filed suit No.
