'Remedy U/S 6 Of Specific Relief Act Cannot Be Granted To Person Having No Intention To Reside In Suit Premises': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides protection of possession, cannot be granted to a person who has no bona fide intention of residing in the suit premises. The Court emphasised that equitable relief under Section 6 must be exercised in favour of a person with a genuine intent to enjoy the property and not for collateral purposes.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing an interim application filed seeking a temporary injunction for possession of the premises under Section 6 of the SRA. The plaintiff, who had been residing in Jordan for several years, claimed that he was unlawfully dispossessed from the suit premises situated in Mumbai and sought restoration of possession. The defendants opposed the claim on the ground that the plaintiff is a resident of Jordan and cannot claim possession of the suit premises, as for securing relief under Section 6 of the Act, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove settled possession of the suit premises.
The Court noted that Section 6 of the Act provides for a special and summary remedy from dispossession where it is not necessary for the possessor to prove title or even the legal nature of possession. The only requirement for a suit under Section 6 of the Act is to prove that the plaintiff was in possession of immovable property and that he has been dispossessed within 6 months without following due process of law.
The Court observed that mere proof of the presence of the plaintiff in the suit property is not sufficient for securing relief under Section 6 of the Act; what needs to be proved is 'possession'. It held that the mere act of the plaintiff visiting the suit premises to perform the last rites of Radheshyam is not sufficient to infer possession of the suit premises by him.
“Plaintiff is admittedly a resident of Jordan. He is a mere occasional visitor to India and claims that during his yearly visits to India, he used to reside with deceased Radheshyam in the suit premises... He flew down from Jordan to India for the performance of the last rites of Radheshyam and happened to be in the suit premises on 8 September 2025 when he was allegedly forcibly dispossessed,” the Court observed.
The Court emphasised that the plaintiff has conceded that he neither actually resided in the suit premises nor had the intention of doing so after securing possession, and Section 6 of the Act is not aimed at protecting mere 'claim to possession'. It observed:
“Restoring his alleged occupation of the suit premises would merely result in the plaintiff locking the suit premises and returning to Jordan. Relief under Section 6 of the Act cannot prima facie be granted in favour of the plaintiff who never had the intention of possessing the suit premises. In the absence of an element of animus possidendi, the plaintiff's settled possession of the suit premises is prima facie not established.”
The Court highlighted that the plaintiff would also not suffer any irreparable loss if a temporary injunction is refused and the balance of convenience is also heavily tilted against the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the second appeal and refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, thereby denying restoration of possession to the plaintiff.
Case Title: Gaurav Sri Kalyan v. Ram Naresh Singh & Ors. [INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 30022 OF 2025 IN SUIT (L) NO. 30021 OF 2025]