In a significant ruling that safeguards homebuyers from misuse of fast-track laws, the Bombay High Court has set aside a trial court order directing a woman to vacate her flat over a disputed leftover payment of around ₹36,000–₹46,000. The court called the builder’s attempt to use a “summary” eviction tool inappropriate for a long-standing buyer-seller dispute, emphasizing that such cases deserve a full, fair trial.
The case dates back to 2004, when Shirish Ramdas Sarode, a developer constructing Manasi Apartment in Katraj, Pune (on land in Survey No. 16/1/150 + 151, Village Katraj, Taluka Haveli), entered into a registered agreement for sale with Jayashree Jaisingh Babar for Flat No. 4 on the first floor (500 sq.ft. + 40 sq.ft. terrace). The total consideration was ₹3,55,000 (excluding stamp duty, registration, and electricity charges of ₹20,000). Jayashree claims she paid over ₹4,23,000 in total (including through a home loan from ICICI Bank, for which the builder gave NOC for mortgage).
Construction completed, and an occupancy certificate was issued by Pune Municipal Corporation. On 10 December 2004, the builder wrote to Jayashree stating the building was ready, meter fixed, and she owed ₹36,000 + ₹10,000 for extra work to take possession. Jayashree asserts she was handed over possession in February 2005 after substantial payments.
Disputes arose over the exact amount paid. In November 2006, Jayashree filed a consumer complaint seeking possession (indicating she did not have it at that time, per the builder). The builder terminated the agreement via notice dated 8 January 2007, claiming non-payment. In June 2009, the builder alleged Jayashree had illegally entered and occupied the flat.
Instead of filing a regular civil suit to prove non-payment, termination validity, and ownership, the builder opted for a Section 6 suit under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in 2009 (Special Civil Suit No. 1444/2009, later renumbered Regular Civil Suit No. 1261/2012).
What is Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act? Section 6 provides a summary, emergency remedy for a person dispossessed of immovable property without consent and without due process of law. It allows quick recovery of possession within 6 months of dispossession. Key features:
- The court does not decide title or ownership rights.
- Enquiry is limited to: (i) Was the plaintiff in possession? (ii) Was dispossession illegal and recent (within 6 months)? (iii) No consent/due process.
- No other reliefs (like compensation, injunction, or mesne profits) can be granted.
- No appeal or review lies against the order.
- It does not bar a later full suit on title.
The purpose is to prevent self-help violence or forceful takeovers and restore status quo quickly, without delving into complicated title/payment disputes.
In this case, the trial court (Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune) decreed the suit on 14 March 2022 in the builder’s favour: Jayashree was ordered to restore possession within 3 months, pay ₹84,000 annual compensation from 2009 onwards, and refrain from creating third-party rights. The court went into detailed evidence on payments, cheques, electricity meters, and even referenced the consumer forum order (which partly refunded Jayashree ₹3,43,643 + interest but denied possession).
Jayashree challenged this via Civil Revision Application No. 190 of 2022.
On 13 February 2026, Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed the revision and set aside the trial court’s decree entirely. Key reasons:
- The builder’s suit was composite — seeking possession + injunction against third-party creation + compensation for mental agony/loss of goodwill + mesne profits/future compensation — which exceeds Section 6’s narrow scope.
- Pleadings delved into non-payment of full consideration, termination of agreement, and transaction validity — turning it into a title/breach dispute unfit for summary enquiry.
- Section 6 cannot resolve developer-buyer disputes over payment shortfalls or agreement cancellation; these require full evidence and trial.
- A developer lacks “settled possession” of an individual flat post-agreement for sale and part-payment (unlike a typical owner).
- Allowing Section 6 here would misuse the provision meant to curb forceful dispossessions, not settle contractual disputes.
- Trial court committed jurisdictional error by adjudicating payments, awarding compensation/injunction, and deciding beyond summary limits.
The High Court dismissed the suit but clarified the builder can file a substantive civil suit based on title to pursue his claims properly. No costs were imposed. Execution proceedings had been stayed since 2022.
Homebuyers’ advocates hailed the ruling as a shield against builders using quick-fix laws to evict long-term occupants over minor disputes. Jayashree, who has resided in the flat for nearly two decades, retains possession for now.
This judgment reinforces that Section 6 is for genuine illegal dispossessions — not delayed payment quarrels in flat deals.
Also Read: Bombay High Court: Slum Occupants Cannot Stall Eviction Over Disputes on Rehab Shop Location
