https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198411 A landlord could not use self-help to dispossess a tenant whose possession was protected by law, because extinction of rights for arrears did not authorise automatic eviction without the statutory procedure. The summary remedy under Section 326 of Qanoon Mal, read with Section 163 of Qanoon Ryotwari, operated like Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, so "disturbed unlawfully" covered disturbance otherwise than in due course of law and "trespass" included forcible entry and dispossession. Title was therefore irrelevant in the summary proceeding, and possession could not be displaced by inquiry into ownership or alleged wrongful possession. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:13:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198411 A landlord could not use self-help to dispossess a tenant whose possession was protected by law, because extinction of rights for arrears did not authorise automatic eviction without the statutory procedure. The summary remedy under Section 326 of Qanoon Mal, read with Section 163 of Qanoon Ryotwari, operated like Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, so "disturbed unlawfully" covered disturbance otherwise than in due course of law and "trespass" included forcible entry and dispossession. Title was therefore irrelevant in the summary proceeding, and possession could not be displaced by inquiry into ownership or alleged wrongful possession. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198411