The central legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of forcible dispossession and the requirement for possession to be taken in due course of law, as emphasized by the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the Transfer of Property Act.

Judgment

SHAH, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE appellant who was forcibly and illegally dispossessed since May, 1986 from the tenanted premises by his landlord is moving from pillar to post for getting justice. Unfortunately, after considering all the relevant facts which were brought on record, the High Court remanded the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for reconsideration by the trial Court. It is apparent that the whole purpose of proceedings under Section 6 of the Act is frustrated by such order. The procedure under Section 6 of the Act is summary and its object is to prevent self help and to discourage people to adopt any foul means to dispossess a person. Dispossession of a tenant should be in accordance with law.

( 3 ) IT is the submission of the appellant that as Proprietor of India Watch House, he was doing business in tenanted premises situated at 843, Anna Salai, Madras for more than 35 years. Subsequently, the respondent the Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. , Madras purchased the said premises and, therefore, the appellant was paying rent regularly to it.

( 4 ) IN 1978, respondent filed Civil Suit for getting the premises vacated from the appellant. During the pendency of the proceedings, appellant gave a power of attorney to one Muralidhar Balani to run business of India Watch House, hence Balani was getting the said shop re-modelled. However, on 20/05/1986 at about 7. 30 p. m. while the work of re-modelling of shop was going on, one Mr. Anakaputhur Ramalingam and about 20 Co-Optex Workers with the help of police forcibly trespassed into the tenanted premises. They took forcible possession despite the fact their Civil Suit for eviction was pending in the Court.

( 5 ) ON the same day, appellant filed a complaint but the police did not take any action on it. On 21/05/1986, the complaint was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai for immediate action against the trespassers. On 31/05/1986 telegraphic complaints were sent to the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police. Therefore, on 16/06/1986, appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5382 of 1986 for a direction to the police to take appropriate action on the complaint filed by the appellant. That writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 3/05/1988 and the Court directed the CB CID to investigate the complaint of the appellant. On such direction, CB CID registered the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 341 and 441 of IPC. The main accused Anakaputhur Ramalingam was arrested on 19/07/1988. Thereafter, on 18-6-1991, the Government of Tamilnadu accorded sanction to prosecute the case against the accused. Hence, the CB CID police filed the charge-sheet against all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 441, 352, 380 and 341 of IPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. It is alleged by the appellant that accused succeeded in pressurizing and influencing the Government to withdraw the prosecution against all accused and thereafter public prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal of the prosecution. Permission to withdraw the prosecution case was granted by the ACMM on 15/10/1993.

( 6 ) IN the meantime, within a period of six months from the date of dispossession, on 25-9-1986, appellant filed OS No. 6998 of 1986 for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Act. Respondent filed written statement and pleaded that appellant had informed them that he has vacated the premises and it was open to the respondent to take the possession either on 19th or 20/05/1986. Therefore, possession was taken in presence of the police constables. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and order, appellant preferred C. R. P. No. 1818 of 1996 before the High Court of Madras. Considering the facts stated above, the High Court allowed the petition. However, the High Court he