9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit by the plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is maintainable. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the suit by the plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is maintainable: The Bombay High Court had framed the issue of whether the suit by the plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was maintainable. The High Court, after considering various authorities, held that the plaintiff bank was a licensee and even after the expiry of the licence period, it could not be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The plaintiff, being in settled possession for a long time, was entitled to file a suit under Section 6 of the Act. The High Court decreed the suit but observed that litigation takes an inordinate amount of time, and big corporations and public bodies are taking advantage of this delay by remaining in possession without any right, title, or interest. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the facts, emphasized that Section 6 provides a summary remedy to any person dispossessed without consent, otherwise than in due course of law. The Court noted that the plaintiff bank was a licensee whose licence period had expired on 31st December 1986, and thereafter, its possession was that of a trespasser. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had not been dispossessed by using any force and that the bank had vacated the premises due to a fire on 12th April 1990. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff bank, being a licensee and having become a trespasser after 31st December 1986, had no right to claim possession from the company, the true owner of the premises. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: The High Court had granted a decree in favor of the plaintiff bank, directing the defendant company to hand over possession of the suit premises. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion. The Court noted that the purpose of Section 6 is to restrain a person from using force and to dispossess a person without his consent otherwise than in due course of law. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff bank had not been dispossessed by force and had vacated the premises due to a fire. The bank's possession after the expiry of the licence period was that of a trespasser, and the true owner, the company, had not used any force to dispossess the bank. The Supreme Court emphasized that the conduct of the plaintiff bank, an instrumentality of the State, was unsupportable as it continued to remain in unlawful possession as a trespasser. The Court held that the plaintiff bank was not entitled to any decree under Section 6 of the Act. The Court also noted that the High Court had indirectly suggested that the defendant company file a suit for possession based on title, which the company had already done. The Supreme Court concluded that granting any decree in this litigation under Section 6 of the Act would not serve the ends of justice and would unnecessarily prolong litigation between the parties, wasting public money and valuable court time. The Court held that the plaintiff bank, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was not entitled to any decree under Section 6 of the Act and dismissed the suit. Separate Judgments: The judgment includes a separate opinion by K. Ramaswamy, J., who disagreed with the majority opinion. Justice Ramaswamy emphasized that the respondent bank was in settled possession and was entitled to remain in possession until ejected in due course of law. He held that the decree for possession under Section 6 of the Act was not illegal and dismissed the appeal. Due to the conflicting judgments, the matter was referred to a larger bench for resolution.
|
