9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Misapplication of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 2. Overlooking of material evidence by the Trial Court. 3. Erroneous presumptions made by the Trial Court. 4. Relief granted beyond the scope of the suit. 5. Confirmation of the Trial Court's judgment by the High Court without proper consideration. 6. Bar of limitation for the suit. 7. Discrepancies between the first and second suits filed by the respondent. 8. Allegations of tenancy and possession. Detailed Analysis Misapplication of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court disposed of the summary suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, without understanding the law relating to such suits. The Trial Court granted relief that could not have been granted under Section 6, which was not even prayed for by the respondent in his plaint. Overlooking of Material Evidence by the Trial Court The Trial Court overlooked material evidence on record and made erroneous presumptions. The Supreme Court noted that the Trial Court failed to consider the evidence on record after finding against the respondent's case of tenancy. Erroneous Presumptions Made by the Trial Court The Trial Court made erroneous presumptions, such as assuming that the respondent was a tenant in respect of a tuck shop from 1972 onwards without any evidence supporting this finding. The Trial Court also relied on an interim order of the Additional Rent Controller and an interim injunction order from the first suit, which only expressed a prima facie view and did not conclusively establish tenancy. Relief Granted Beyond the Scope of the Suit The Trial Court granted a decree for possession and directed the appellant to remove constructions, including dismantling glass, which was beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and not prayed for in the plaint. Confirmation of the Trial Court's Judgment by the High Court Without Proper Consideration The High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court without considering the erroneous presumptions and overlooking of material evidence. The Supreme Court found the judgments of both courts to be unsatisfactory and perverse. Bar of Limitation for the Suit The appellant contended that the suit was barred by limitation, as the dispossession of the respondent was completed in 1984, and the suit was filed in November 1986. The Supreme Court noted that the courts below erroneously discredited the document proving the payment of Rs. 22,972 for regularization of unauthorized construction, which was sufficient proof of completed construction in 1984. Discrepancies Between the First and Second Suits Filed by the Respondent The Supreme Court observed material discrepancies between the averments in the plaints of the first and second suits. The respondent failed to explain why he alleged in the first suit that the cause of action arose in 1984, and later corrected the date in the second suit. Allegations of Tenancy and Possession The Supreme Court found that the respondent's case of tenancy under the predecessor-in-title of the appellant was false. The respondent admitted in his evidence that he had never seen the alleged landlord and had no lease deed, rent note, or rent receipt to support the plea of tenancy. The appellant's plea that the respondent was engaged on daily wages through his brother was supported by evidence, which was not considered by the Trial Court. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and dismissed Suit No. 793/86. The respondent was found not to be in exclusive possession as a tenant, and the dispossession took place in 1984. The respondent's inconsistent allegations and abuse of the court process disqualified him from equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act.
|
