Section 6 possession protection for an expired licensee remained unresolved after divided opinions on unlawful dispossession.

A divided SC considered whether a licensee remaining in occupation after expiry of the licence could invoke Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act after alleged dispossession without due process. One opinion treated the occupant as a trespasser after expiry and held that no forcible dispossession by the owner was proved, so Section 6 relief was unavailable. The other opinion held that Section 6 protects possession taken or retained otherwise than in due course of law, including settled possession after expiry of a licence, and found unlawful dispossession. Both opinions agreed that title cannot be tried in Section 6 proceedings, but no majority determination was reached and the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether a licensee in occupation after expiry of the licence, and who says it was dispossessed without due process, can maintain a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession.

Analysis: One opinion held that once the licence expired the occupant became a trespasser and, on the facts, the bank had not been forcibly dispossessed by the owner; the fire and subsequent vacation showed that no relief under Section 6 was available, especially since the owner had not resorted to self-help. The other opinion held that the remedy under Section 6 is directed against dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, that settled possession is protected even in the case of a licensee after expiry, and that the occupant had been dispossessed without consent and without lawful process. Both opinions accepted that title cannot be tried in a Section 6 proceeding, but differed on whether the facts disclosed unlawful dispossession and entitlement to restoration.

Conclusion: One view held the suit under Section 6 to be not maintainable and the decree for possession to be set aside. The other view upheld the decree for possession under Section 6 in favour of the occupant.

Final Conclusion: The Bench delivered conflicting opinions on maintainability and entitlement to possession under Section 6, so no final majority determination was reached and the matter was directed to be placed before a larger Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 6 protects possession taken or retained otherwise than in due course of law, but where the Bench is equally divided no binding final rule emerges from the decision.

---