The main legal point established is the entitlement of a plaintiff to file a suit for possession under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing the right to possession even after dispossession and the prohibition of forcible dispossession.

Surjit Singh, J:- This second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court (District Judge) was admitted on the following substantial questions of law, vide order dated 11.9.2000:- 1 .Whether the suit as laid was maintainable under the law?

2. Whether the lower appellate court has erred in rejecting the application made by the defendant / appellant for permission to lead additional evidence?

3. Whether the lower appellate court has erred in rejecting the application made by the defendant / appellant for the amendment of the written statement?

2. The appeal may finally heard on 18th and 19th October, 2006. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be summed up thus. Respondent Prem Lata, hereinafter called plaintiff, filed a suit on 3.12.1986, for possession of the suit premises consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom, store and latrine, alleging that she was a tenant in the aforesaid premises under the present appellants who were impleaded as defendants No.2 to 6 and that for some personal reasons, she had not been staying in Shimla where the premises are situated and directed her neighbor, proforma respondent No.2 Rajesh Sood to look after the property in her absence and that when on 20.11.1986 she came to Shimla, the premises were found to be in possession of the defendants, i.e. appellants and proforma defendant No.2. When the plaintiff questioned tfoe»defendants as to how they came to occupy the premises during the subsistence of her tenancy, appellants / defendants No.2 to 6 told that they had taken possession of the premises from defendants No.1 and thereafter the wife of defendant No.1 locked the premises and disappeared. The plaintiff had come to Shimla on the aforesaid date to attend to attend the hearing, on the next following day, of an eviction petition filed by the appellants against her and defendant Nb.1 for her eviction from the premises on the ground that she had sublet the premises to defendant No.1 and that when she went to the court of Rent Controller on the next following day, the appellants-defendants did not appear and that petition was dismissed in default. With these allegations, she sued for the restoration of possession and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover her belongings, which she had kept in the premises.

3. The appellants as also the defendant No.1 (proforma respondent No.2) took the plea that the plaintiff herself had surrendered the tenancy on 14.6.1982 in favour of defendant No.1 (respondent No.2) and immediately thereafter defendant No.1 attorned in favour of the appellants and the latter started receiving rent from him and accepted him as their tenant. They also raised the objections that the suit was not maintainable, plaintiff had no locus-standi to sue, she was estopped from filing the suit by her acts, deeds and conduct and that the suit was barred by time.

4. The trial Court found all the material issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed a decree for possession of the premises in her favour and against all the defendants. Appeal filed by the appellants and proforma respondents in the court of District Judge, stands dismissed.

5. As regards the first substantial question formulated by this court, i.e. about the maintainability of the suit, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the only remedy available to the respondent-plaintiff was to have filed a suit for recovery of possession, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, within six months of her alleged dispossession and that a regular suit for possession after the expiry of period of six months was not maintainable. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon a judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in Hari Chand vs. Ramesh Lai [1993 (2) SLJ 1354]. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff claiming himself to be a tenant, used for possession of a tenanted premises on the ground that he had been forcibly dispossessed. The suit