2010 (2) TMI 1295 - SC - Indian Laws

Landlord can sue trespasser under Section 6 Specific Relief Act without making tenant mandatory party

SC held that landlord can maintain suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against trespasser who forcibly dispossessed tenant, without ... Forcibly dispossession of the tenant by a person other than landlord - can landlord maintain suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against such person for immediate possession - whether tenant is a necessary party in such suit - Meaning of 'physical and legal possession' - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact, on plain reading of Section 6(1), it is clear that besides the person who has been dispossessed, any person claiming through him can also file a suit seeking recovery of possession. Obviously, a landlord who holds the possession through his tenant is competent to maintain suit under Section 6 and recover possession from a trespasser who has forcibly dispossessed his tenant. A landlord when he lets out his property to the tenant is not deprived of his possession in the property in law. What is altered is mode in which the landlord held his possession in the property inasmuch as the tenant comes into physical possession while the landlord retains possession through his tenant. Section 6 of the Act provides that suit to recover possession under the said provision could be filed by the person who is dispossessed or any person claiming through him. The tenant having lost the possession though without his consent to a third party, may not be interested in recovery of possession. He may not be available. He may not like to involve himself in litigation. In such circumstances, if a landlord brings the suit to recover possession against trespasser under Section 6, it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that tenant must necessarily be impleaded as party to such suit. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 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, 1963The 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 SuitThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.