C.L. Pangarkar, J.
1. This revision is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge whereby she dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. The facts are as follows:
The plaintiff No. 1 was engaged by the defendants as a sacristan and the plaintiff No. 2 as his assistant. They were the employees of the defendants. They came to be appointed in the year 1976. The defendant No. 1 is the head and administrator of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs were working under the control and supervision of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs were to assist the priest in the Church during the religious services and administration of sacraments. The plaintiff No. 2 was also required to do clerical work in connection with the function of the said Church. At times, the plaintiffs were required to work during night hours also. As a result of this, the defendants provided one room to the plaintiffs. The said room has a separate entrance and separate bathroom. The said room was in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had stored their belongings in the said room. Some disputes arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants. As a result of this, the defendant No. 1 terminated the services of the plaintiffs with effect from 15.04.2000. During the time the plaintiffs were in service, it is contended that the defendants were trying to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that since the plaintiffs did not vacate the suit house, the defendants broke open the lock of the plaintiffs' room, removed the belongings of the plaintiffs' and thus dispossessed the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit under Section 6.
3. The defendants filed their written statement. They deny that the plaintiffs were their servants or the plaintiffs are their employees. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs are not the regular employees of the defendants. They were merely given honorarium for the work done by them. It is the contention of the defendants that the defendant No. 2 was appointed as a sacristan and, therefore, he was allowed to make use of the said room. It is further the contention of the defendants that the defendants continued to be in the lawful possession of the said room. The defendants had requested the plaintiffs to vacate the said room repeatedly, but the plaintiffs did not. It is further the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff No. 2 abandoned the service and had joined an establishment at Vasco-da-Gama. The defendants submit that the plaintiff No. 2 was given an ample opportunity to remove his belongings and to hand over the possession, but the plaintiff No. 2 did not accede and ultimately, therefore, on 15.04.2000, the defendants removed the belongings in presence of the parishioners and then, an inventory was prepared. The main contention of the defendants is that they were always in lawful possession and had never parted with the possession as such.
4. The learned Judge of the Trial Court framed issues and found that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that they were not dispossessed. Holding so, she dismissed the suit.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/ applicants. None appears for the respondents. The only question that is required to be decided in this revision, is whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed unlawfully within 6 months of institution of the suit.
6. The undisputed fact is that the plaintiffs were put in possession of said room and particularly the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs claim that since they were serving with the defendants, they were put in possession. The pleadings of the defendants particularly in para. 3 of the written statement, show that the plaintiffs were allowed to use the room by the defendants. It is neither parties' case that the plaintiffs are tenants or the trespassers. The user of the plaintiffs can, therefore, be said to be permissive. The defendants' pleadings further clearly go to show that the defendants say that they had removed the belongings of the plaintiffs and had prepared an inventory on 15.04.2000. This clearly establishes that when the possession was taken by the defendants and belongings were removed, the plaintiffs were clearly in possession of the room. It would be necessary to reproduce the pleadings of the defendants in para. 10 of the written statement.
10. With reference to paragraph (12) of the plaint, the contents thereof are denied. The defendants state that the plaintiff No. 2 was given ample notice and ample opportunity to collect his goods kept in the said room and the request to this effect was first made in April 1999, August 1999, March 2000 and finally the defendants removed the goods of plaintiff No. 2 on 15.04.2000 from the said room after drawing up an inventory in the presence of several parishioners.
7. These pleadings make it more than clear that the plaintiffs' belongings were in the room and the defendants ultimately took possession and prepared an inventory of the belongings of the plaintiffs. The fact that the plaintiffs' belongings were in the room, clearly shows that the plaintiffs were in actual possession of the suit property. The learned Judge of the Trial Court, observes in her judgment (a very strange observation) that the plaintiffs were given ample opportunity to remove their belongings, but they failed and, therefore, the defendants were justified in taking the possession. She expresses her surprise as to under what right the plaintiffs were retaining the possession. Further she observes that the defendants cannot be said to have acted high handedly in taking possession and opening lock. The fact is that the plaintiffs were put in possession by the defendants and the plaintiffs had refused to vacate the premises. The defendants certainly did not have a right to dispossess the plaintiffs without following due process of law. The learned Judge of the Trial Court certainly has fallen in error in holding that the defendants did not act high handedly and that their act of dispossessing the plaintiffs, was right. This finding cannot, but be said to be perverse.
8. In the suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, the Court is required to go into the question of dispossession otherwise than due process of law. The Court is not required to go into title or right of any party to be in possession or seeking possession. The only thing that is required to be seen, is whether the plaintiffs were in possession and whether he has been dispossessed without following due process of law and that too within 6 months of institution of the suit. Here, the learned Judge of the Trial Court, has totally ignored the law and found that since the plaintiffs had lost their job they had no right to retain the possession. Morally, they did not have and may not have, but that did not give right the defendants to forcibly dispossess them.
9. The annexure G is the letter written by the defendants to the plaintiffs on 14.04.1999 whereby the plaintiffs were called upon to hand over vacant possession and again by letter dated 14.08.1999, the defendants made same request. On 18.03.2000, the defendants informed the plaintiffs that if the room is not vacated, they would take possession. The plaintiffs even informed the police vide annexure L that the defendants are illegally trying to dispossess the plaintiffs. These documents once again clearly go to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and the defendants were trying to dispossess them without following due process of law. Thus, the evidence of previous possession of the plaintiffs and their dispossession by the defendants on 15.04.2000, is actually proved. The suit was therefore, maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
10. The learned Judge has held that the suit is barred by limitation. The date of dispossession is 15.04.2000 and the suit is filed on 16.10.2000. The learned Judge holds that the suit is barred by limitation by 2 days. This finding of the learned Judge, appears to me to be totally wrong. The learned Judge has failed to consider two aspects. First that 15.10.2000 was a holiday being Sunday. Hence, the suit could not be filed on 15.10.2000. Section 4 of the limitation Act says that when a period of limitation expires on a Holiday, a suit can be filed on the next working day of the Courts. Secondly, the learned Judge has also failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 says that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the date from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. Thus, one day i.e. 15.04.2000 will have to be excluded. The period would begin to run from 16.04.2000 and end on 15.10.2000. 15.10.2000 was Sunday. The suit is filed on 16.10.2000. The suit is, therefore, within limitation. The findings recorded by the learned Judge on both points, therefore, suffer from impropriety as well as illegality and are, therefore, liable to be set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, is, therefore set aside and the application is allowed. The suit is decreed. The defendants shall put the plaintiffs in possession of the said room forthwith.