S.R EJAZ versus TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 26-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.R. EJAZ 
A 
v. 
TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE 
y 
SOCIETY LTD. 
FEBRUARY 26, 2002 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 6. 
Object of-Held: ls to prevent self-help and to discourage people to c 
adopt any foul means to dispossess a person-Dispossession of a tenant should 
be in accordance with law. 
Restoration of possession-Landlord forcibly dispossessed tenant during 
pendency of suit for eviction-Tenant filed suit for restoration of possession-
Trial Court dismissed suit-High Court allowed revision petition but remanded D 
the matter to trial court for fresh consideration-Correctness of-Held, The 
object of S.6 is to prevent self help and to discourage unlawful and forcible 
dispossession of a person-If matter is remanded for consideration after a 
long period of time the purpose of summary suit would be frustrated-Hence, 
suit decreed-High handed ·action of landlord in taking forcible possession E 
depricated. 
The appellant was doing business in tenanted premises, Subsequently, 
... 
the respondent purchased the said premises and the appellant was paying rent 
to it regularly. 
F 
The respondent filed a civil suit for getting the suit property vacated 
by the appellant. During the pendency of the suit the respondent forcibly took 
over possession of the tenanted premises from the appellant. The appellant 
had lodged a criminal complaint on the same day but no action was taken. 
-I 
Subsequently, within a period of six months from the date of G 
dispossession the appellant filed a civil suit for restoration of possession under 
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which was dismissed. The High Court 
allowed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant but remanded the 
matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the evidence and proper 
H 
31 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A disposal. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the appellant had 
informed the respondent that he had vacated the premises and, therefore, it 
was open to the respondent to take possession of the tenanted premises. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The procedure under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 
1963 is summary and its object is to prevent self-help and to discourage people 
to adopt any foul means to dispossess a person. Dispossession of a tenant 
C should be in accordance with law. (33-E] 
2. If the matter is remanded for reconsideration after a long time, the 
whole purpose of summary suit under Section 6 of the Act for taking 
possession would be frustrated. The facts were eloquent and no further 
evidence was necessary nor anything was required to be re-appreciated. 
D Admittedly there is no document to indicate that the appellant willingly 
handed over the possession of the suit premises. If the appellant was prepared 
to hand over possession of the suit premises willingly a consent decree would 
be have been obtained in a pending suit In any case, there was no necessity 
of taking possession by use of force. If the appellant had willingly handed over 
possession, he would not have immediately lodged the criminal complaint and 
E made representation to the higher authorities for appropriate directions. 
(35-D-E) 
3. If actions by the mighty or powerful are condoned in a democratic 
country, nobody would be sllfe nor the citizens can protect their properties. 
F Law frowns upon such conduct. The Court accords legitimacy and legality 
only to possession taken in due course of law .. If such actions are condoned, 
the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution oflndia or the legal 
rights would be given a go by either by the authority or by rich and influential 
persons or by musclemen.' Law of jungle will prevail and 'might would be 
right' instead of 'right being might'. [35-FJ 
G 
State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, [19891 2 SCC 505, 
relied on. 
4. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for restoration of possession 
of the suit property is decreed. Further, the high handed action taken by the 
H respondent in taking forcible possession from a tenant is deprecated.(36-B) 
S.R. EJAZ '·TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. [SHAH, !.) 33 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1671 of A 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.200 I of the Madras High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 1818 of 1995. 
R. Sundravardan, Ram Lal Roy and R.N. Keshwani for the Appella

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.