Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 58
2010 (2) UAD 53
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha
Civil Appeal No. 1930 of 2010
SADASHIV SHYAM SAWANT (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
ANITA ANANT SAWANT – Respondent
Decided on : 22.02.2010
For the Respondent:Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Mr. Vishal A. Patil, Mr. K.N. Rai, Advocates
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sec. 6 — Scope — Exclusive possession of tenant — Forcible dispossession of, by a third person other than the landlord — Landlord can maintain suit u/S 6 of Act, 1963 against such third person for immediate possession — Landlord being in legal possession through the tenant — This dispossession of tenant tantamounts to dispossession of the landlord.
(Paras 1, 5, 13 to 16, 19)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sec. 6 — Sec. 6 of the Act provides that suit to recover possession under the said provision could be filed by the person who, is dispossessed or any person claiming through him — It may be desirable that a land in a suit u/s 6 of the Act impleads the tenant as a party — But his non-impleadment is not fatal to maintainability of such suit. (Paras 1, 19, 20)
¼v½ fof'k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 6 ds foLrkj dk ekeyk & fdjk;snkj dk ,dek= dCtk gksus dh fLFkfr esa edku ekfyd ds vfrfjDr fdlh r`rh; O;fDr }kjk cyiwoZd dCtk fy;k x;k Fkk ftl ds fo#) edku ekfyd dks /kkjk 6 vf/kfu;e 1963 ds vUrxZr ,sls r`rh; O;fDr ds fo#) okn nk;j djus dk vf/kdkj gS ih MCY;w fd fdjk;snkj ds ek/;e ls edku ekfyd dk dkuwuh dCtk fo|eku gS & fdjk;snkj dh bl izdkj dh xbZ csn[kyh edku ekfyd dh csn[kyh ds rqY; gSA
¼izLrj 1] 5] 13 ls 16] 19½
¼c½ fof'k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 6 ds vUrxZr dCtk izkIr djus gsrq ,sls O;fDr }kjk okn nk;j fd;k tk ldrk Fkk ftls csn[ky fd;k x;k Fkk vFkok mlds ek/;e ls Dyse djus okyk vU; dksbZ O;fDr & /kkjk 6 vf/kfu;e 1963 ds vUrxZr fookfnr Hkwfe ds okn esa fdjk;snkj dks Hkh i{kdkj cuk;k tkrk gS ijUrq mldks i{kdkj u cuk;s tkus ls ,sls okn dh iks"k.kh;rk dks dksbZ {kfr ugha igq¡pkrk gSA
¼izLrj 1] 19] 20½
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 (hereinafater referred to as ‘the contesting defendants’) and one Smt. Nanibai Shankar Sawaht, 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 disp
