Back
2010 (1) Supreme 698
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Sadashiv Shyama Sawant [D] Through L.Rs., & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Anita Anant Sawant — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1930 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP [C] No. 10418 of 2008]
Decided on : 22-02-2010
Rent and Eviction Laws-Specific Relief Act, 1963- Section 6- Where a tenant in exclusive possession is dispossessed forcibly by a person other than landlord-Whether a landlord can maintain suit under Section 6 of Act of 1963 against such person for immediate possession and whether in such a suit, tenant is a necessary party- Section 6 of the Act provides that suit to recover possession under the said provision could be filed by person who is dispossessed or any person claiming through him-The tenant having lost the possession though without his consent to a third party, may not be interested in recovery of possession- He may not be available- He may not like to involve himself in litigation- In such circumstances, if a landlord brings the suit to recover possession against trespasser under Section 6, it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that tenant must necessarily be impleaded as party to such suit-It may be desirable that a landlord in a suit under Section 6 of the Act against a trespasser for immediate possession when, at the date of dispossession, the house was in occupation of a tenant, impleads the tenant, but his non-impleadment is not fatal to the maintainability of such suit- Appeal dismissed. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the Case :
Issue in consideration in present case was where a tenant in exclusive possession is dispossessed forcibly by a person other than landlord-Whether a landlord can maintain suit under Section 6 of Act of 1963 against such person for immediate possession.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that a landlord by letting out the property to a tenant does not lose possession as he continues to retain the legal possession although actual possession, user and control of that property is with the tenant. By retaining legal possession or in any case constructive possession, the landlord also retains all his legal remedies. As a matter of law, the dispossession of tenant by a third party is dispossession of the landlord. The word “dispossessed” in Section 6(1) must be read in this context and not in light of the actual possession alone. If a tenant is thrown out forcibly from the tenanted premises by a trespasser, the landlord has implied right of entry in order to recover possession for himself and his tenant. Similarly, the expression “any person claiming through him” would bring within its fold the landlord as he continues in legal possession over tenanted property through his tenant. On plain reading of Section 6(1), it is clear that besides the person who has been dispossessed, any person claiming through him can also file a suit seeking recovery of possession. Obviously, a landlord who holds the possession through his tenant is competent to maintain suit under Section 6 and recover possession from a trespasser who has forcibly dispossessed his tenant. A landlord when he lets out his property to the tenant is not deprived of his possession in the property in law. What is altered is mode in which the landlord held his possession in the property inasmuch as the tenant comes into physical possession while the landlord retains possession through his tenant.Hence held that there is nothing in Section 6 of the Act to bar a landlord from suing a trespasser in possession even when, at the date of dispossession, the property is in actual occupation of a tenant entitled to possession.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J. —
Leave granted.
2. The main question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is: where a tenant in exclusive possession is dispossessed forcibly by a person other than landlord, can landlord maintain suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against such person for immediate possession. The incidental question is, whether tenant is a necessary party in such suit.
3. Smt. Anita Anant Sawant - the sole respondent filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of portion of property being Gram Panchayat House No. 97 situated on land bearing Gat No. 1, Hissa No. 61, Village Ambet, Taluka Mahasala, District Raigad, against the appellants and their predecessors-in-title (hereinafter referred to as ‘the contesting defendants’) and one Smt. Nanibai Shankar Sawant, since deceased, (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant no. 4’). The plaintiff averred in the plaint that she purchased the entire house No. 97 from defendant no. 4 by registered sale deed on October 1, 1981. At the time of purchase, part of house No. 97 was in possession of Pandurang Vichare who vacated that portion and she came into possession of entire house. Later on, she let out southern side one room along with hall adjacent to Padavi and northern side room of hall (for short ‘suit property’) to one P.V. Warik. On October 1, 1988, the contesting defendants forcibly dispossessed the tenant - P.V. Warik, threw away his articles and took possession of the suit property. The plaintiff, thus, prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property of which her tenant was forcibly dispossessed. The contesting defendants filed written statement and traversed plaintiff’s claim by stating that suit property was joint family property and defendant no. 4 had no authority to sell the said house to the plaintiff. The contesting defendants, thus, claimed that they were co-owners and in possession of the entire house No. 97. Defendant No. 4 set up the plea that no consideration was paid to her for the sale of house No. 97 and that sale deed was obtained by fraud. It transpires, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues, including that of title to property although such issue was unnecessary. The trial court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held that plaintiff was able to prove her dispossession on October 1, 1988 by the contesting defendants from the suit property and that she could maintain the suit under Section 6 of the Act against the contesting defendants as she was in possession through a tenant over the suit property. The trial court, accordingly, vide its judgment and decree dated July 31, 2001, directed the contesting defendants to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
4. The contesting defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court by filing revision application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. It may be noticed here that defendant no. 4 had already died during the pendency of suit and her legal representatives were brought on record, but later on they were deleted from array of parties in the revision application. Inter alia, the contention raised before the High Court was that if the tenant of the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed, the suit under Section 6 of the Act could be filed by the tenant and not by the landlady. The High Court did not accept the contention of the contesting defendants and held that in view of the language of Section 6 of the Act, either the tenant who was actually dispossessed or the plaintiff being landlady could file the suit. The High Court, thus, by its judgment dated March 28, 2008 dismissed the revision application. It is from this judgment that the present appeal by special leave arises.
5. Section 6 of the Act reads as under:-
“6.- Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.- (1) If any person is dis
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
