The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy for the lessee in a possession dispute is to claim damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, and possession should be obtained in due course of law.

AMIT RAWAL J.

The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act instituted at the instance of the respondents in respect of half portion of the back side of first floor measuring 1150 sq. ft of SCO No.147-148, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, has been decreed.

2. Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by virtue of lease agreement dated 21.07.2003, the respondent was inducted as tenant w.e.f. 01.08.2003 on a rent of Rs. 30,000/- per month exclusive of all municipal/property taxes, water charges etc. The aforementioned lease deed was registered. The ground floor of SCO was in occupation of Lord Krishna Bank, erstwhile Centurian Bank of Punjab. The occupants of ground floor were facing leakage/seepage problem due to blockage of water from the office flooring.

3. He submits that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit on the premise that the petitioners-defendants had requested the respondent- plaintiff/company to allow the repair work by dismentalling the floor and shop and that after completion of the work, they will put company into possession. It is in this backdrop of the matter, the respondent alleged that they had vacated the premises aforementioned for a period of three months and occupied in another place i.e. SCO No.58-61, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh in a portion measuring 500 sq. ft. on the first floor.

4. On assurance, much less, voluntarily they handed over the possession and the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act could not have been pressed into service. At the best, the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for damages for having not allegedly honoured the commitment. There was no wrong in this regard. If at all, the respondent-plaintiff had not been able to prove the breach of trust, could not have been compensated in terms of money, thus, there cannot be any violation of the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The possession was not taken forcibly or under any other threat. In fact, the respondent-plaintiff volunteered to hand over the possession.

5. He further submits that the story of alleged repair work was a concocted one and no evidence in this regard has been brought on record. Neither assistance of any expert or surveyor in this regard has been taken, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgment and decree under challenge.

6. Per contra, Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, during the course of the hearing, had brought to the notice of this Court a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Syndicate Bank 1992 (Sup2) SCC 29 to contend that identical question whereby the party had voluntarily handed over the possession, in essence, the landlord had taken possession in accordance with the assurance, can be prevented or not in honouring the commitment and obligation in restoring back the possession. After noticing the relevant case law and other factors, the matter was referred to the larger Bench. The decree in the similar suit, in the meantime, was challenged by the landlord by seeking the eviction as there was no interim stay in favour of the lessee and therefore, the question posed remained un-answered. He further submits that vide order dated 12.09.1991, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the matter since the suit at the instance of the landlord had been filed by holding that parties would be at liberty to take all the possible pleas. In support of his contention, Mr. Sehgal, relies upon the observations made in paragraphs 25, 29 and 43 of the aforementioned judgment to contend that the whole purpose of referring the matter to the larger Bench was to rule out the mischief played upon by the lessor i.e. the pretexts of repair etc. etc, thus, the judgment and decree under challenge is perfectly legal and justified.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Paragraph