The Bombay High Court has ruled that a civil suit seeking restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act cannot automatically be transferred to the Small Causes Court merely because the parties share a licensor-licensee relationship. Justice Farhan P. Dubash held that the true nature of the suit must be examined before deciding jurisdiction and restored Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.'s suit before the Mumbai City Civil Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. claimed it had been granted possession of commercial premises in Mumbai under two leave and licence agreements executed in October 2017. The company alleged that it was forcibly dispossessed from the premises on 23 October 2018 without following the due process of law.
It thereafter instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which provides a summary remedy to a person who alleges unlawful dispossession and seeks restoration of possession within six months. Later, after the matter came before the City Civil Court, the property owners argued that only the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act because the dispute arose from a licensor-licensee relationship. The City Civil Court accepted that objection and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court.
Court Examined the Real Nature of the Suit
Justice Farhan P. Dubash disagreed with the trial court's approach, observing that the court had focused only on the relationship between the parties without considering the actual cause of action pleaded in the plaint.
The Court explained that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned only with two questions whether the plaintiff was in possession and whether that possession was disturbed otherwise than in accordance with law within six months before filing the suit. Questions relating to ownership or contractual rights are outside the scope of such proceedings.
Licence Agreement Does Not Change Character of a Section 6 Suit
The High Court observed that the leave and licence agreements were referred to only to explain how the company entered into possession of the premises. They were not the foundation of the relief sought.
The bench observed, "The existence of such agreements, by itself, cannot alter the dominant nature of the suit when the relief is founded on alleged dispossession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act."
The Court further noted that merely because parties stand in a licensor-licensee relationship does not mean every dispute concerning possession must necessarily fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. The dominant nature of the pleadings must first be examined.
Cross Objections Also Rejected
The respondents had also argued that instead of returning the plaint, the trial court should have rejected it altogether as being barred by law.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that once it concluded the suit was maintainable as one under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, there was no legal basis for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court clarified that issues regarding actual possession or alleged dispossession would be decided only during trial and had not been examined on merits in the appeal.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Bombay High Court set aside the City Civil Court's order returning the plaint, restored the suit to the file of the Mumbai City Civil Court, and dismissed the respondents' cross objections seeking rejection of the plaint.
The Court clarified that it had decided only the question of jurisdiction and that all issues relating to possession and the merits of the dispute remain open for adjudication before the trial court.
Case Details
Case Title: Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunita Dileep Nevatia & Anr.
Case Number: Appeal From Order No. 695 of 2024
Judge: Justice Farhan P. Dubash
Decision Date: 14 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
