Facts: The Applicant (flat purchaser) entered into a registered agreement for sale with the Respondent (developer) in 2004 for a flat in Pune. A dispute arose regarding the payment of the full consideration, with the developer claiming a balance remained unpaid and subsequently terminating the agreement in 2007. The developer alleged that in June 2009, the purchaser illegally entered and occupied the flat without consent. Consequently, the developer filed a suit specifically invoking Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession, a prohibitory injunction against creating third-party interests, and monetary compensation for mental agony and loss of goodwill. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the developer, ordering the purchaser to restore possession and pay annual compensation.
Procedural Posture: The Applicant-purchaser challenged the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 14 March 2022 by filing a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Bombay High Court.
Issue: Whether a suit filed by a developer against a flat purchaser involving prayers for injunction and compensation, alongside restoration of possession based on a dispute over sale consideration and termination of contract, is maintainable under the summary provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
Holding: No, the suit as framed was not maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court set aside the Trial Court's decree and dismissed the original suit, while granting the developer liberty to file a substantive suit based on title.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 6 is a summary remedy intended solely to restore the status quo ante for a person dispossessed without consent and outside the due process of law, independent of the question of title. A suit under Section 6 must be confined to the fact of possession and the act of dispossession within six months. By including prayers for permanent injunction, compensation for mental agony, and loss of goodwill, the developer transitioned the suit into a substantive one requiring a detailed inquiry into the "fructification of the sale transaction" and "validity of contract termination". Such complex factual and legal inquiries regarding title and contractual breaches are beyond the limited scope of a summary inquiry under Section 6. Furthermore, a developer who has not yet delivered legal possession under a disputed contract cannot typically claim the "settled possession" required to invoke this section against a purchaser.