Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) filed a Civil Revision Application challenging the order of the City Civil Court Judge, Mumbai, dated 2 August 2008, which decreed a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, directing restoration of possession to the respondents (plaintiffs). The respondents had filed Suit No.4693 of 2001 against MIDC and its officers, claiming that they were in possession of Plot No.AM-14, Road No.16, Plot No.102 in the Industrial Estate at Marol, Andheri, Mumbai, and were carrying on business there prior to October 1992. They alleged that on 26 July 2001, MIDC started a demolition drive and demolished the structure, dispossessing them around 1 August 2001 without following due process of law. MIDC contended that it acted under orders of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Public Interest Litigation No.91 of 2000 for removal of encroachments and road widening. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs were in possession and were dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. In revision, the High Court examined the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which provides a summary remedy for restoration of possession based on prior possession, without requiring proof of title. The court noted that even if MIDC acted under court orders, it could not dispossess without following due process unless the court order specifically authorized forcible dispossession without notice. The High Court found that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and had not acted illegally or with material irregularity. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed, upholding the decree for restoration of possession.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 Suit for Possession - Maintainability - Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for restoration of possession is maintainable against a statutory corporation even if the corporation claims to have acted under orders of the High Court in a PIL, as the suit is based on prior possession and does not require proof of title. The court held that the remedy under Section 6 is summary in nature and the only question is whether the plaintiff was in possession and was dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Dispossession by Statutory Authority - Due Process - A statutory corporation cannot dispossess a person without following due process of law, even if acting under court orders in a PIL, unless the court order specifically authorizes forcible dispossession without notice. The court held that the MIDC's action of demolition and dispossession without notice to the plaintiff was not in due course of law. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure Code - Revision - Scope - In a revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court can interfere only if the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction, or has acted illegally or with material irregularity. The court held that the trial court's decree under Section 6 was within its jurisdiction and no interference was warranted. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for restoration of possession is maintainable against a statutory corporation like MIDC which claims to have acted under orders of the High Court in a PIL, and whether the trial court's decree for restoration of possession was proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the decree of the City Civil Court Judge, Mumbai, dated 2 August 2008, which directed restoration of possession to the respondents under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Section 6 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Suit for possession based on prior possession
- Maintainability against statutory authority
- Dispossession without due process
- Summary remedy
- Title not relevant
