Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act provides a summary remedy for individuals dispossessed without consent, discouraging self-help remedies and emphasizing due process of law.

( 1 ) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant/applicant has called in question the defensibility of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1999 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 211-A/96 whereby the said learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff/non-applicant preferred under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) THE facts as have been undraped are that the house of the defendant is situated adjacent to the lane of Sharma Tent House in Rajendra Nagar. There are two blocks in the said house and the plaintiff is residing in the South Block on payment of Rs. 250/- per month. It is stated that the tenanted premises include two living rooms, one kitchen and one veranda. In the other room the defendant resides. In Dec. 1994 marriage ceremony of the defendant was to be held for which he requested the plaintiff to handover the possession of the part of premises with an assurance that he would deliver back the possession after the marriage ceremony was over. Though, one and half month had elapsed the defendant did not hand over the possession back to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has been dispossessed without due process of law, and therefore, he is entitled to get back the possession as per Section 6 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE defendant filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not residing as a tenant in the south block. It is pleaded that Aziz Khan was residing in the disputed premises which include one living room and a kitchen and he was paying Rs. 250/- per month towards rent. It is further putforth that another room and kitchen was taken on rent by the mother of Aziz Khan from the deceased, Harbhajan Singh, and she vacated the premises as a result of which Aziz Khan illegally occupied the same and was paying Rs. 250/- per month towards rent. It is further set forth that the plaintiff was in illegal possession of one kitchen and one room. The defendant disputed plea of taking over of possession during the time of marriage. It was also put- forth that the plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed premises. It was also denied that she was forcibly dispossessed. It was further pleaded that the premises in question is a joint family property and it belonged to Late Chahadsingh and after his death it became the joint family property of his legal representatives and all the co-owners have not been made parties.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge framed as many as five issues and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the disputed premises, that the defendant disposed the plaintiff without due process of law, and therefore, she was entitled to get back the possession; that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of parties, that the defendant was not entitled to get Rs. 5000/- from the plaintiff towards damages, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the cost of the suit.

( 5 ) CHALLENGING the aforesaid findings Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the learned trial Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the premises in question was given on tenancy to the plaintiff and the disputed premises was handedover by the plaintiff at the time of marriage ceremony to the defendant, but the defendant did not deliver the possession, back and in view of this it is crystal clear that she was not forcibly dispossessed without her consent, and hence, Section 6 is not attracted.

( 6 ) REFUTING the aforesaid submissions Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the non applicant, has contended that the finding recorded in respect of issues by the learned trial Judge are impeccable and the petitioner having forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff, she is entitled to get back the possession.

( 7 ) TO appreci