1 cra910.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Revision Application No. 910 of 2010 Vishwas B. Marchande ... Applicant v/s. Mr. Shantaram V. Salaskar ... Respondent Ms. Nutan Moily for the applicant. Mr. Ramesh Pandey for the respondent. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 15, 2011. P.C. By way of present application, the applicant challenges the order dated 14th September, 2010 vide which the suit filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is decreed. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit inasmuch as the respondent-plaintiff has not cared to show that he was in possession of the suit premises six months prior to the date of the institution of the suit. She submits that the learned 2 cra910.10.sxw trial Court though has found that the applicant is a landlord, has decreed the suit though the plaintiff has not proved his possession. 3. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the application. 4. The limited question in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act would be as to whether plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises prior to six months of the institution of the suit. The learned trial Court on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the respondent-plaintiff i.e. electricity bills, ration card, permission of the municipal council etc. has found that on the date of alleged dispossession, petitioner was in possession of the suit premises. It has further been found that since the present applicant had put a lock on the suit premises on 12th June, 2004, a criminal proceeding was also lodged against him. 5. The question of title would not be a question relevant under Section 6 of the said Act. If the applicant wants to evict the respondent-plaintiff, he can very well initiate the proceedings in accordance with law and evict him after taking recourse to due process of law. 3 cra910.10.sxw 6. No material irregularity is noticed in the order impugned to warrant interference under the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115. Rejected. 7. At this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioner requests for continuation of interim protection that was granted by this Court vide order dated 27th October, 2010. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the same. 9. Taking into consideration that an interim protection is operating from October 2010, the same is extended for a period of four weeks from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)