Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – SRA, 1963

Another essential of Section 6 is that the plaintiff must be dispossessed without following procedure under law. Therefore, where the plaintiff is dispossessed without following law he can file a suit under this section.

• In K. Verma V. Union of India it was held by the Bombay High Court that the possession of tenant even after the expiry of tenancy period is juridical possession and hence the owner cannot throw him out without following the procedure of law.
• The purpose behind section 6 of the Act is to restrain a person from using force and to dispossess a person without his consent otherwise than in due course of law; [East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (36).]
• ‘Due course of law’ implies that right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty or property in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right determination of the controversy by proof every material fact which bears on the question of fact or liability be conclusively proved or presumed against him; [East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (36).]
• Section 6 does not in any way contemplate an enquiry into title; the court is required to confine itself to evidence of possession and possession only. The result is that even if the defendant has a better title than the plaintiff, he cannot resist the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of possession if the plaintiff proves the allegation made by him.
• In a suit under section 6 of the Act, the only question that has to be determined by the Court is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property and whether he had been illegally dispossessed therefrom on any date within six months prior to the filing of the suit; [T.C. Limited v. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2012 (8) JT 188: 2012 (8) SCALE 11: 2012 (6) SLT 556.]
• Section 6 postulates the existence in the plaintiff on the date of eviction, at least possessory title. That means that he should have juridical possession and he should not be a mere trespasser squatting on the property. Juridical possession, in one, is actual possession with an intention of maintaining himself in possession [Neyveli Lignate Corpn. Ltd. v Narauna Iyer AIR 1965 Mad 122].
• It may be noted that ‘juridical possession’ cannot per se always be equated with ‘lawful possession’. The protection that the court affords is not of the possession, which in the circumstances is ‘litigious possession’ and cannot be equated with ‘lawful possession’, but a protection against forcible dispossession.
• The basis of relief is a corollary of the principle that even with the best of title there can be no forcible dispossession [M/s Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) Ltd. v Bangalore City Corpn. AIR 1986 Kant. 194].
• Section 6 frowns upon forcible dispossession without recourse to law but does not at the same time declare that the possession of the evicted person Is a lawful possession [M.C. Chockalingam v V. Manickavasagam (1974) II SCJ 30].
• A landlord who was in possession through a tenant, on the dispossession of his tenant becomes dispossessed himself, and is, therefore entitled to seek his remedy under Sec. 6 [Jadunath Singh v Bishunath Singh, 1950 ALJ 288].
• When possession is taken by the State Government, grievance cannot be made by the petitioner until it has established its better title to the property and therefore becomes entitled to possession [C. Indra Kumar Pvt. Ltd, v State of Orissa AIR 1972 Ori 40.]
• Where the grant of possession was purely gratuitous, the owner had the right to reclaim possession even without the knowledge of the person in possession. The party in possession in this case was using the garage owned by the sister. The owner dispossessed him [Anima Mallick v Ajoy Kumar Roy (2000) 4 SCC 119].
• Under Sec. 6, all that the plaintiff has to prove is his previous possession and dispossession by the defendant within a period of six months from the date of suit. The remedy provided by Sec. 6 is thus an additional/supplementary one and does not preclude the party dispossessed to assert his title in the ordinary court of law, even though the suit is brought beyond six months of his dispossession. A suit based on possession alone is not incompetent after the expiry of 6 months and a suit based on prior possession could be filed within 12 years, under Sec. 5, and title need not be proved unless the defendant can prove one [Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v K. M. Krishnaiah AIR 1998 SC 1132].
• If the plaintiff is in possession of the property in part-performance of a contract for sale and the requirements of Sec. 53-A, T. P. Act are satisfied, he may protect his possession even against the true owner. Therefore, in view of Sec. 53-A, T. P. Act, and, Sec. 6 of Specific Relief Act, the person in possession may not have title to the property yet if he has been inducted into possession by the rightful owner and he is in peaceful and settled possession of such property he is entitled in law to protect the possession until dispossessed by due process of law by a person having better title than what he has [Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v Anil Panjwani AIR 2003 SC 2508]