Possession, not title, is the focus of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and the plaintiff must prove prior possession to invoke this provision.

Biswajit Basu, J.

1. The plaintiff in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is the petitioner of the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner in the suit alleged that he is the tenant in respect of the suit property at a rent of Rs.300/- payable according to english calendar month under Md. Israil, Makhtarul Islam and predecessor in interest of the opposite party Nos. 6(a) to 6(f) M.L Jalil (Since deceased) by virtue of an agreement dated January 25, 2006. The said land lords have been arrayed as defendants in the suit.

3. The petitioner in the suit alleged that he was dispossessed from the suit property without his consent and without due process of law on September 26, 2018 by the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner immediately thereafter complaining his such dispossession from the suit property lodged written complaint with the police authorities.

4. The opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being the principal defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. The said defendants in their written statement strongly denied the allegation of the plaintiff that on September 26, 2008 they forcefully dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property. The said defendants in their written statement categorically denied that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the suit property and was in possession of the same as a tenant. The plaintiff in the said written statement further contended, inter alia, that one Raghunath Kori was the original tenant of the suit property under the defendants-landlords. On the death of said Raghunath Kori the said tenancy was devolved upon his widow Durga Devi. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being the relatives of the said Raghunath Kori and Gouri Devi have been possessing the suit property.

5. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 adduced evidence in the suit as PW.1 and DW. 1 respectively. Md. Israil the defendant No. 4 adduced evidence in the suit as DW. 2.

6. The following seven issues were framed in the suit :-

(1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and prayer?

(2) Is there any cause of action to file the suit?

(3) Is the suit barred by under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

(4) Whether the plaintiff was a tenant in the suit property?

(5) Whether the plaintiff was illegally evicted?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief?

(7) To what other relief, or reliefs are claimed by the plaintiff?

7. The learned Trial Judge by the judgment and order under challenge dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 speaks of recovery of possession not on the ground of title but on the basis of prior possession. The plaintiff in this suit is simply required to prove that he was in possession of the suit property, wherefrom he was ousted without due process of law. In this suit the plaintiff deposed as solitary witness. In support of his claim of prior possession, he produced some rent bills which are disputed by the defendant landlord Md. Israil as DW. 2. The plaintiff has failed to prove anything support of his possession over the suit property.

8. Mr. Ganguly learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submits that the learned Trial Judge has acted with material irregularity and earred in dismissing the suit without taking into consideration the documents i.e. rent bills, written complaints with the police and attested copy of the tenancy agreement filed by the plaintiffs and proved in the suit being Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. He places reliance on the case of Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs. Rao Jagdish Singh and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 620 to contend that landlord has no right to reenter he must approach the Court for dispossession of tenant and forcibly taking possession is illegal. Mr. Ganguly learned advocate also places reliance on the case of Nair Service society Ltd. Vs. K.C. Alexander and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 11