1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2009. (RAKESH KHEMCHAND VANGANI...Vs.... SUDHIR CHOPDA & OTH...) _______________________________________________________________________ _ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri J.J.Chandurkar, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : MAY 05, 2009. 1. This revision is directed against judgment of learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Amravati whereby he dismissed applicant's suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, on the basis of previous possession. The applicant was, in fact, not in possession of the property. He was merely an agent of one Sudhir Chopda-respondent No.1, who was proprietor of Bombay Lorry Operators Syndicate. The applicant was agent of said Chopda and in that capacity was using the premises. Said Sudhir Chopda had categorically stated that the tenancy in respect of the premises was with his 2 father in the past and thereafter came to him. He had appointed the applicant as agent. He admitted that he had not issued any letter terminating the agency but this would not be material since the dispute between the agent and the principal would be independent of dispute between landlord and the tenant. Shri Chopda stated that he had surrendered his right of tenancy and had handed over the possession of the shop to the landlord i.e. Defendant No.2. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence tendered before him, came to hold that the appliant had no independent right, title, interest or even possession over it in the property. Therefore, it couldnot be said that he was illegally dispopssessed. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that an occupant in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without recourse to law and relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda V. M. Varadappa Naidu, reported at (2004) 1 SCC 769 for this 3 purpose. In this case, the tests for settled possession have been enumerated by the Supreme Court pointing out that the possession must be effective, undisturbed and to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. 3. In the case at hand the applicant was never in possession since he was merely using the premises as an agent of Shri Sudhir Chopda. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the applicant had not at all proved that he was in possession. Use of premises as an agent of the tenant cannot be equated to being in possession. Hence, the finding of the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. The revision application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.