Exclusive possession and limited relief under Section 6 require strict proof; prima facie tenancy assumptions cannot sustain the decree.

A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act succeeds only on proof of lawful exclusive possession and dispossession within the statutory period. The Supreme Court held that inconsistent pleadings, absence of a lease deed, rent note or rent receipt, and reliance on prima facie orders did not prove tenancy or exclusive possession in the respondent's own right. It further held that possession of a servant or agent is not possession for Section 6 purposes. The Court also found that a decree for demolition and removal of construction could not stand because it went beyond the plaint and the limited scope of Section 6. The decree was set aside and the suit dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had proved exclusive possession as a tenant so as to maintain a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the decree granting possession and additional relief of demolition/removal of construction could be sustained under the pleadings and the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had proved exclusive possession as a tenant so as to maintain a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: The respondent's own pleadings were found inconsistent on the origin and date of tenancy, and the evidence did not establish any lease deed, rent note, or rent receipt. The finding of the Trial Court on tenancy had been against the respondent, yet the later conclusion on possession was based on assumptions and on orders which were only prima facie or did not determine tenancy. The Court also held that exclusive possession by itself does not create a presumption of tenancy, and that possession of a servant or agent is not possession in his own right for the purpose of a suit under Section 6.

Conclusion: The respondent failed to prove tenancy or exclusive possession in his own right, and the suit under Section 6 was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree granting possession and additional relief of demolition/removal of construction could be sustained under the pleadings and the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: The Court found that the respondent had approached different fora with inconsistent versions, had not come with clean hands, and had abused the process of court. It further held that the decree travelled beyond the plaint and beyond the limited scope of Section 6 because the Trial Court had granted an additional mandatory relief for removal of construction and dismantling of glass, though no such prayer had been made.

Conclusion: The decree could not be sustained, as it was both unsupported by the pleadings and beyond the permissible relief under Section 6.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent judgments below were set aside and the respondent's suit was dismissed, leaving the appellant entitled to succeed in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can succeed only on proof of lawful exclusive possession and dispossession within the statutory period, and a court cannot grant relief beyond the limited scope of that provision or on the basis of a mere prima facie presumption of tenancy.

---