Possessory Suit U/S 6 Specific Relief Act Maintainable In Civil Court Even If Parties Have Licensor-Licensee Relationship: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession after alleged dispossession otherwise than in due course of law is maintainable before the Civil Court even if the parties stand in the relationship of licensor and licensee. The Court held that the existence of a licensor-licensee relationship does not by itself...
The Bombay High Court has held that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession after alleged dispossession otherwise than in due course of law is maintainable before the Civil Court even if the parties stand in the relationship of licensor and licensee. The Court held that the existence of a licensor-licensee relationship does not by itself attract the bar under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, where the suit is founded on alleged unlawful dispossession and satisfies the requirements of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Justice Farhan P. Dubash was hearing an appeal filed by Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. challenging an order of the City Civil Court returning its plaint for presentation before the Court of Small Causes under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court. The appellant had instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act within six months, seeking restoration of possession. The respondents contended that since the dispute arose between a licensor and licensee and related to recovery of possession, it fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.
The Court observed that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act provides a summary remedy where the Court is concerned only with whether the plaintiff was in possession and whether such possession was disturbed otherwise than in due course of law within six months preceding the institution of the suit, while questions relating to title are outside the scope of such proceedings. It held that the plaint disclosed a suit satisfying the essential requirements of Section 6.
The Court observed that the Trial Court erred in proceeding principally on the existence of the licensor-licensee relationship without examining the true nature of the suit and the relief claimed. The Court noted that Section 6 provides a summary remedy for restoration of possession and that the status of the parties is irrelevant in such a suit.
“… a suit under Section 6 stands on a limited and distinct footing. The status of the parties is not determinative in such a suit. What is material is the prior possession and dispossession otherwise than in due course of law,” the Court observed.
The Court held that a suit under Section 6 based on dispossession continues to remain within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court notwithstanding the relationship of landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee. It emphasized that in a Section 6 suit, the foundation is prior possession and later dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, whereas in a licensor-licensee possession dispute, the foundation is the right flowing from such relationship. Hence, the suit cannot be treated as a proceeding under Section 41 merely because the Appellant originally entered into possession of the suit premises as a licensee.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order directing return of the plaint, and restored the suit to the file of the City Civil Court.
Case Title: Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunita Dileep Nevatia [Appeal From Order No. 695 of 2024]