https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199541 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. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:51:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199541 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199541