Possession and temporary injunction claims under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, providing summary protection against unlawful dispossession, established by continuous occupation even in absence of electricity supply.

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1) Plaintiffs have filed the present Interim Application seeking temporary injunction for restoration of possession of the suit premises during pendency of the Suit and to restrain the Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs’ possession of the suit premises. Plaintiffs have also sought injunction against the Defendants from selling, alienating, or creating third party rights in respect of the suit premises during pendency of the Suit. Plaintiffs have also sought prayer for appointment of Court Receiver for taking physical possession of the suit premises and for handing over the same to the them.

2) Plaintiffs have instituted the present Suit under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 (the Act). The Suit is premised on Plaintiffs’ claim of possession of suit premises comprising of units bearing Nos. 901, 903 and 904 admeasuring in aggregate 16,096 sq.ft. (super built-up area) equivalent to 11,268 carpet area in the building named ‘Hallmark Business Plaza’ situated at CTS No. 629 (p) of Village Bandra (East), Taluka-Andheri in the Mumbai Suburban District at Sant Dnyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 alongwith 15 reserved car parking spaces (Suit Premises). Plaintiffs claim that they are put in possession of the suit premises in June 2011 by Defendant No.1 in bare shell condition and that they have invested Rs.8 crores in furnishing the same. It is Plaintiffs’ case that possession of the suit premises is handed over to them under an understanding that documents of sale thereof would be executed in their names. The Plaint contains pleadings relating to complex business arrangement between Ashapura Group (Defendants) and Option Group (Plaintiffs) and it is not necessary to narrate the said complex business arrangement between Plaintiffs and Defendants at this stage. That under the arrangement agreed between Option Group and Ashapura Group, it was decided to have a permanent business location under which Ashapura Group agreed to transfer the suit premises to Plaintiffs for business purposes. According to Plaintiffs, this is how Defendant No.1 handed over possession of the suit premises to them, on which an amount of Rs.8 crores has been invested by Plaintiffs for enhancing the same. According to Plaintiffs, they have been operating their offices from the suit premises. Plaintiffs have produced a series of documents to demonstrate uninterrupted, continuous and peaceful use and occupation of the suit premises by each of the Plaintiff-Company.

3) According to the Plaintiffs, in October/November 2024, the electricity supply to the suit premises was disconnected due to non-payment of dues. However, Plaintiffs continued using the suit premises for office purposes by installing generators. On 20 April 2025, one of the Directors of Plaintiffs received a telephone call about deployment of security guards at the suit premises and denial of access. Plaintiffs noticed that the manager of the building was putting a lock on the shutter on the common entrance of the suit premises and that Defendants had deployed three bouncers at the entrance. That on 21 April 2025, when the employee of the Plaintiffs approached the suit premises, he also noticed locking of the shutter and deployment of bouncers from the see-through shutter. The said employee noticed few employees with torches roaming inside the suit premises. On 22 April 2025, the Director of the Plaintiffs visited the suit premises and assessed the situation through the VIP entrance which was also found to be locked. They also noticed deployment of bouncers at the VIP entrance. They attempted to enter through common entrance, but were denied access by the bouncers. A complaint was lodged on 22 April 2025 with Kherwadi Police Station. It was also noticed that ‘A&O Realty’ logo was removed from the common entrance door and from building’s nameplate. On 25 April 2025, when Plaintiffs’ employees attempted to report for wor