Regular Civil Suit No.004/2002

MR. SANJAY DRAVID,
S/o of MR. RAHUL DRAVID,
Major, married, in service,
Residing at Defense Quarters,
Panaji-Goa. ....................................Plaintiff

V/S

MR. SACHIN TENDULKAR,
S/o of MR. SATCHIT TENDULKAR,
Major, single, in business,
Residing at Housing Colony,
Porvorim-Goa. ................................Defendant

SUIT UNDER SEC. 6 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT

The plaintiff above named submits and states as under:
1) The registered address of the plaintiff for all future communications as required under Order 6 Rule 14 A of CPC is the same as is mentioned in the cause title.

2) The plaintiff is employed in the Defense Department in Goa for the last 8 years and is presently transferred to Panaji section with effect from 20th April 2002.

3) On receipt of the transfer order, the plaintiff began to make arrangements for purpose of acquiring on lease residential premises in and around Panaji and as such approached MISS. SUSHMITA ROY, for leasing premises consisting of 1 bedroom flat on ground floor of Sea Gull Apartments, Miramar Panaji -Goa. (hereinafter referred to as suit premises)

4) The said MISS. SUSHMITA ROY agreed to grant a lease of the suit premises on certain terms and conditions which the plaintiff agreed to abide by.

5) The plaintiff then entered into a lease agreement dated 2nd May 2002 and consequently the plaintiff was put in possession of rent premises. Hereto annexed and marked ‘Exhibit A’ is the copy of the lease deed.

6) In the 2nd week of September, the defendant approached the plaintiff at the suit premises and questioned the plaintiff about his right to occupy the same. The plaintiff on being questioned by the defendant produced a copy of lease deed under ‘Exhibit A’.

7) The defendant claimed that the said MISS. SUSHMITA ROY had no right over the suit premises and therefore could not have leased the suit premises and therefore the defendant told the plaintiff to quit and vacate the premises within 1 week failing which he would take legal action against the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s explanation about his position made no difference to the behavior of the defendant.

8) On 27th September 2002, the defendant along with 3 other persons not known to the plaintiff same to the suit premises and forcefully dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit premises and threw all his personal belongings out and affixed a lock on the main door. The defendant also warned the plaintiff of the consequences in case of his attempt to reoccupy the suit premises.

9) The defendant then approached the police station and lodged a complaint about the said incident. The police treated the complaint as a non-cognisable offence; contend that the dispute was of a civil nature. Hereto annexed and marked is ‘Exhibit B’ colly is the copy of the complaint and the report of the non-cognisable offence.

10) The plaintiff submits that he has been dispossessed against his consent from the suit premises otherwise than in due course of law and is therefore entitled to a judgment and decree from the Hon’ble Court directing the defendant to restore possession of suit premises of suit premises to the plaintiff.

11) For purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, the relief in the present suit is valued at Rs.15, 000/-.

12) The suit premise is situated at Sea Gull Apartments, Miramar Panaji-Goa. The cause of action arose in Panaji all within the jurisdiction of this court. This Hon’ble Court therefore has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.

13) The cause of action for the present suit arose on 27/9/2002, when the plaintiff was dispossessed of the suit premises against his will and consent otherwise than in due course of law. This suit is therefore not barred by limitation.

14) No other suit is filed or pending between the parties on the same cause of action.

15) The plaintiff therefore prays:
a) for a judgment and decree directing the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit premises forthwith.
b) for costs.

PLACE: Panaji- Goa.
DATE: 10th October 2002

Sd/-
PLAINT DRAWN BY PLAINTIFF
Sd/-[ADV.FOR PLAINTIFF]

VERIFICATION

I, MR. SANJAY DRAVID, the plaintiff above named state on oath that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 9 are true to my personal knowledge and contents of paragraphs 10 to 15 are submissions made upon legal advice and I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly affirmed at Panaji- Goa on this 10th day of October 2002.

Sd/-
PLAINTIFF