9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a landlord can maintain a suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against a person who forcibly dispossessed the tenant. 2. Whether the tenant is a necessary party in such a suit. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of Suit by Landlord u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 The main question for consideration was whether a landlord can maintain a suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against a person who forcibly dispossessed the tenant. The trial court held that the plaintiff (landlord) could maintain the suit as she was in possession through a tenant over the suit property. The High Court upheld this view, stating that either the tenant who was actually dispossessed or the landlord could file the suit. The Supreme Court examined various precedents and legal principles, noting that the language of Section 6(1) of the Act allows "he or any person claiming through him" to file a suit for recovery of possession. The Court concluded that a landlord retains legal possession through the tenant and thus can maintain a suit under Section 6 against a trespasser who forcibly dispossessed the tenant. The views of the Calcutta, Bombay, Patna, Pepsu, and Rajasthan High Courts supporting this position were found to be correct, while contrary views from the Madras High Court and Nagpur Judicial Commissioner were not upheld. Issue 2: Necessity of Tenant as a Party in the Suit The incidental question was whether the tenant is a necessary party in such a suit. The Supreme Court held that while it may be desirable to implead the tenant, it is not an absolute requirement. The tenant may not be interested in recovering possession, may not be available, or may not want to involve in litigation. The Court agreed with the Bombay High Court's view that a landlord can sue in his own name where there is an injury to the reversion. Therefore, the non-impleadment of the tenant is not fatal to the maintainability of the suit. Conclusion The appeal was dismissed, affirming that a landlord can maintain a suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against a trespasser who forcibly dispossessed the tenant, and the tenant is not a necessary party to such a suit.
|
