Tenant Cannot Use Unsigned Agreement to Sell to Prevent Eviction: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the settled legal principle that a tenant’s status does not change to that of an owner merely by alleging an Agreement to Sell, especially when such an agreement remains unsigned and unregistered.

In a decision delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, the Court upheld the eviction of occupants who claimed they had transitioned from tenants to prospective buyers. The Bench emphasized that once a person is inducted as a tenant, they remain a tenant until the status is legally altered through a registered instrument or a contract. The Court dismissed two appeals filed by the occupants, challenging the Trial Court’s orders that had decreed a suit for possession in favor of the landlord and dismissed their suit for specific performance.

The Tenancy-Ownership Dilemma

The dispute centered around whether the occupants were tenants paying monthly rent or prospective purchasers under an oral agreement. While the occupants asserted that they had paid substantial sums toward a sale consideration of Rs. 19.50 lakhs, the Court found that no formal, signed Agreement to Sell existed.

The Court observed that despite the alleged intent to purchase, the occupants continued to pay Rs. 9,000 per month, which was documented as rent in other judicial proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is clear admission, from the statement made by Mr. Sanjay Dubey in another Suit, that they had been living in the Property on rent @Rs.9,000/- per month. It is also evident from the record that in fact, the tenancy was between Mr. Nandlal and Mr. Ramesh Chandra Dubey, while Mr. Sanjay Dubey was also in the occupation of the Property, as the family member."

Legal Necessity of Registered Documents

Addressing the claim of protection under Section 53A of the Transfer Of Property Act, 1882, the Court noted that such protection is only available if the agreement is registered, as per Section 17(1)(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. Referring to Uma Hada vs. Sunil Gupta and Pawandeep Singh and Anr. vs. Gurdeep Singh Virdi, the Court held that the absence of a registered document was fatal to the appellants' claims.

Background:

The litigation arose when the landlord, a retired civil servant, sought possession of his flat in Patparganj, Delhi, alleging that the occupants (a father and son) had stopped paying rent. The occupants countered by filing a suit for specific performance under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming an oral agreement from 2007. They alleged they had renovated the property and paid Rs. 16.65 lakhs over time. However, the landlord maintained that the occupants were chronic defaulters and that the signatures on the alleged agreements were forged.

The Trial Court had invoked Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pass a judgment on admissions, noting the occupants had previously admitted their tenant status in a separate High Court suit. In upholding this, the High Court relied on Jiwan Das vs. Narain Das, which establishes that an agreement purchaser has no right in the property until a conveyance deed is executed. The Court also cited M.R. Sawhney vs. Doris Randhawa and Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh ( "(1985) 2SCC 332": 1985 CaseBase(SC) 79) to reiterate that "once a tenant, always a tenant."

Case Details:
Case No.: RFA 482/2023 and RFA 11/2024
Case Title: RAMESH CHANDRA DUBEY & ANR. v. NANDLAL
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Mr. Yojit Mehra and Mr. Amartya Bhushan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Priya Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepesh Aneja and Ms. Shruti Verma, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 437