TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a landlord can maintain a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession when the tenant in exclusive occupation has been forcibly dispossessed by a third party; (ii) whether the tenant is a necessary party to such a suit.
Issue (i): Whether a landlord can maintain a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession when the tenant in exclusive occupation has been forcibly dispossessed by a third party.
Analysis: Section 6 uses the expressions "dispossessed" and "he or any person claiming through him". The provision is a summary remedy and corresponds to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. A landlord who lets out property to a tenant does not lose legal possession; the tenant's physical possession is treated as possession through the landlord. On forcible dispossession of the tenant by a third party, the landlord is also treated as dispossessed in law and may sue for immediate restoration of possession without being driven to a regular title suit.
Conclusion: Yes. The landlord can maintain the suit under Section 6, and the appeal fails on this issue.
Issue (ii): Whether the tenant is a necessary party to such a suit.
Analysis: The statutory language permits a suit by the dispossessed person or any person claiming through him. The tenant may or may not be interested in or available for the litigation. While impleadment of the tenant may be desirable, the absence of the tenant does not, by itself, defeat the landlord's suit for summary possession.
Conclusion: No. The tenant is not a necessary party, though impleadment may be proper.
Final Conclusion: The landlord's possessory action was held maintainable even though the tenant had been forcibly dispossessed, and non-joinder of the tenant did not render the suit incompetent; the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a landlord remains in legal possession through a tenant, so forcible dispossession of the tenant by a third party is dispossession of the landlord, and the landlord may sue for summary recovery of possession even without impleading the tenant as a necessary party.
TaxTMI 
