Home / Crime and Justice / Bombay HC: Payment Woes Not Grounds for Eviction
Bombay HC: Payment Woes Not Grounds for Eviction
9 Mar
Summary
- Builders cannot use summary eviction for payment disputes.
- Bombay High Court ruled Section 6 of Specific Relief Act wrongly invoked.
- Proper civil suits are the correct legal path for builders.
A significant ruling by the Bombay High Court has established that builders cannot employ summary eviction tactics to resolve payment disputes with homebuyers. The court clarified that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which pertains to unlawful dispossession, was erroneously invoked in a case involving a Pune flat purchased in 2004, where a builder attempted to evict a buyer over an alleged unpaid amount.
Legal experts highlight that this judgment reinforces a crucial principle: Section 6 is exclusively for situations involving forcible or unlawful dispossession and is not meant to address ownership, title, or contractual disagreements. Courts examining such cases will only consider prior possession and the timeframe of dispossession, excluding issues like sale consideration or agreement terminations.
The court emphasized that a homebuyer's possession under a sale agreement does not become illegal due to a payment dispute. Instead of summary remedies, builders are advised to initiate formal civil suits for the recovery of dues or contract enforcement. This process allows for a thorough examination of contracts, payment records, and the rights of both parties involved.
