Supreme Court Upholds Restoration of Possession Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act

In Sanjay Maruti Jadhav & Anr. v. Amit Tatoba Sawant (2024 Latest Caselaw 272 SC), the Supreme Court upheld the decree restoring possession to a licensee who had been forcibly dispossessed by the property owners. The Court reaffirmed that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides a summary remedy to a person dispossessed without due process of law, irrespective of questions relating to title. 

The appellants were the owners of the property, which had been given to the respondent under a leave and licence agreement. The respondent alleged that he was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed from the premises by the appellants without following due process of law. Within six months of the alleged dispossession, the respondent instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking restoration of possession. The Trial Court rejected the appellants' defence that the respondent had voluntarily handed over possession and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The High Court dismissed the appellants' revision petition and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The appellants thereafter approached the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was whether the respondent was entitled to restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act after being illegally dispossessed and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below warranted interference. 

The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court observed that:

•Both the Trial Court and the High Court had concluded, on appreciation of the evidence, that the respondent had been illegally dispossessed. 

•The plea that the respondent had voluntarily surrendered possession was rightly rejected by the courts below. 

•The appellants' objection regarding the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was also correctly rejected. 

•The findings recorded by the courts below were concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence on record and did not warrant interference in appeal. Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent was entitled to restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 

The Supreme Court:

•Dismissed the appeal. 

•Upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. 

•Confirmed the decree restoring possession to the respondent under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 

•Disposed of all pending applications. 

The judgment reiterates that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act provides a speedy and summary remedy against unlawful dispossession, irrespective of the parties' title to the property. It also reinforces the principle that courts will ordinarily not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The decision underscores that even a property owner cannot forcibly dispossess a person in settled possession without following the procedure established by law.