SADASHIV SHYAM SAWANT (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus ANITA ANANT SAWANT

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 22-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 O] 2 S.C.R. 1070 
SADA$HIV SHYAM SAWANT (0) THROUGH LRS. AND 
ORS. 
v. 
ANITA ANANT SAWANT 
(Civil Appeal No. 1930 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s. 6 - Suit filed by landlord 
C under s. 6 against trespasser when tenant in exclusive 
possession of suit property is dispossessed forcibly by a 
D 
· trespasser/third party - Maintainability of - Held: Maintainable 
- Non-impleadment of tenant is not fatal to the maintainability 
of such suit as tenant is not necessary party in such suit. 
Words and phrases: Word 'dispossessed' - Meaning of 
- In the context of s.6(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal were whether landlord can maintain suit 
E under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against a 
F 
. trespasser for immediate possession where a tenant in 
exclusive possession was dispossessed forcibly by the 
trespasser and whether tenant is a necessary party in 
such suit. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The key words in Section 6(1) of Specific 
Relief Act, 1963 are "dispossessed" and "he or any 
person claiming through him". A person is said to have 
G been dispossessed when he has been deprived of his 
possession; such deprivation may be of actual 
possession or legal possession. Possession in law 
follows right to possession. The right to possession, 
though distihct from possession, is treated as equivalent 
H 
1070 
• 
SADASHIV SHYAM SAWANT (D) THROUGH LRS. v. 1071 
ANITA ANANT SAWANT 
to possession itself for certain purposes. A landlord by 
A 
letting out the property to a tenant does not lose 
possession as he continues to retain the legal 
possession although actual possession, user and control 
of that property is with the tenant. By retaining legal 
possession or in any case constructive possession, the 
B 
landlord also retains all his legal remedies. As a matter 
of law, the dispossession of tenant by a third party is 
dispossession of the landlord. The word "dispossessed" 
in Section 6(1) must be read in this context and not in light 
of the actual possession alone. If a tenant is thrown out c 
forcibly from the tenanted premises by a trespasser, the 
landlord has implied right of entry in order to recover 
possession (for himself and his tenant). Similarly, the 
expression "any person claiming through him" would 
bring within its fold the landlord as he continues in legal 
0 
possession over the tenanted property through his 
tenant. As a matter of fact, on plain reading of Section 
6(1 ), it is clear that besides the person who has been 
dispossessed, any person claiming through him can also 
file a suit seeking recovery of possession. Obviously, a 
E 
landlord who holds the possession through his tenant is 
competent to maintain suit under Section 6 and recover 
possession from a trespasser who has forcibly 
dispossessed his tenant. A landlord when he lets out his 
property to the tenant is not deprived of his possession 
in the property in law. What is altered is mode in which 
F 
the landlord held his possession in the property 
inasmuch as the tenant comes into physical possession 
while the landlord retains possession through his tenant. 
[Paras 16 and 19] [1082-F-H; 1084~C-D] 
Veeraswami Mudali v. P.R. Venkatachala Mudali and 
others AIR 1926 Madras 18; Ramchandra v. Sambashiv AIR 
1928 Nagpur 313; (Kanneganti) Ramamanemma v. 
(Kan~eganti) Basavayya AIR 1934 Madras 558, overruled. 
Nobin Das v. Kai/ash Chandra Dey (1910) Vol. VII 
G 
H 
... ! 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A Indian Cases 924; Ramanadhan Chetti v. Pulikutti Servai 
and Mohideen avuther v. Jayarama Aiyar (1898) 21 Madras 
288; Sai/esh Kumar and Anr. v. Rama Devi AIR (1952) 
Patna 339; Gobind Ram Jamna Dass v. Mst. Mewa wlo 
B 
Parbhati AIR (1953) Pepsu 188, approved. 
Ramanadhan Chetti v. Pulikutti Servai (1898) 21 Madras 
288; Mohideen Ravuther v. Jayarama Aiyar (1921) 44 
Madras 937, referred to. 
Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition, page 617), 
C referred to. 
1.2. Section 6 of the Act provides that suit to recover 
possession under the said provision could be filed by the 
person who is dispossessed or any person claiming 
0 through him. The tenant having lost the possession 
though without his consent to a third party, may not be 
interested in recovery of possession. He may not be 
available. He may not like to involve himself in litigation. 
In such ,ci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.