Delhi High Court Upholds Decree for Recovery of Possession: “Permissive User Cannot Insist on Continued Occupation Without Legal Right,” Dismisses Appeal Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), challenging the trial court’s judgment and decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which allowed recovery of possession of the disputed property in favor of the respondents. The High Court held that the appellants, as successors to a permissive user, had no legal right to retain possession once the license was terminated.

Justice Girish Kathpalia concluded that:

“In the overall conspectus… the appellants, as permissive users, cannot resist vacation of the subject property as no legal or equitable right exists in their favor.”

The court observed that the appellants’ written statement contained clear and unequivocal admissions, which justified the trial court’s summary decree.

Facts:

1. The disputed property is a shop (north-west portion of property No. 60A, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi), measuring 18.75 square meters.
2. The property was originally allotted to the respondents’ predecessor, Ved Prakash Bagai, through a registered lease deed in 1962. During his lifetime, Ved Prakash constructed shops on the plot and executed two registered wills in 1977, distributing parts of the property among his brothers:
   • Om Prakash Bagai received one shop on the south-east side.
   • Anand Prakash Bagai (the appellants’ predecessor) received one shop on the south-west side.
3. The shop in the north-west corner (the disputed property) was not bequeathed to Anand Prakash. However, Ved Prakash allowed Anand Prakash to use it for storage purposes without consideration, purely out of love and affection.
4. After Ved Prakash’s death, the respondents inherited the disputed property and served a quit notice in 2017, terminating Anand Prakash’s permissive use. The notice demanded that he vacate the premises within 15 days, failing which damages of ₹1,00,000 per month would be applicable.
5. Anand Prakash refused to vacate, prompting the respondents to file a civil suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. After Anand Prakash’s death, his legal representatives (the appellants) continued possession and filed the present appeal.

Issues:

1. Did the appellants have any legal right to continue possession of the disputed property?
2. Was the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC validly passed based on the admissions in the appellants’ written statement?
3. Were there any triable issues requiring a full trial instead of summary disposal?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellants):

The appellants argued:

1. The disputed property was handed over to their predecessor (Anand Prakash) out of love and affection, and not as a license. Therefore, it was not revocable.
2. The General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed by Ved Prakash in favor of Anand Prakash authorized the latter to construct a staircase and additional floors, implying an interest in the property.
3. The appellants were ready to vacate the property if the respondents allowed them to construct the staircase, indicating that the issue of possession was not straightforward and involved conditionality.

“The appellants contended that the long-standing possession of the disputed property for over 50 years proves that it was given permanently out of love and affection.”

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents asserted:

1. Anand Prakash was merely a permissive user of the property, allowed to use it for storage without consideration. Such permissive use could be terminated at any time.
2. The quit notice was duly served, and the appellants had no legal or equitable right to remain in possession.
3. The admissions in the appellants’ pleadings (specifically their willingness to vacate under certain conditions) confirmed the absence of any right or title to the property.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Permissive Occupation and Legal Rights:
   • The court held that permissive occupation does not create ownership, tenancy, or any other legal interest in the property. In the absence of a registered deed (e.g., a gift or sale deed), such possession is revocable at any time by the owner.
   • The appellants’ reliance on the claim of “love and affection” was dismissed as inconsequential since no valid transfer document supported their claim.
2. Order XII Rule 6 CPC:
   • This rule allows a court to decide matters summarily if there are clear admissions in the pleadings, negating the need for a full trial.
   • The appellants’ written statement admitted:
     1. The property was given out of love and affection without any monetary consideration.
     2. They were willing to vacate the property if allowed to construct a staircase.
   • These admissions justified the summary decree, as no triable issues existed regarding possession.
3. General Power of Attorney (GPA):
   • The court clarified that the GPA only authorized Anand Prakash to facilitate construction of additional floors and a staircase. It did not create any ownership or transfer rights over the disputed property.

Precedent Analysis:

While no specific case laws were cited, the court adhered to established principles that permissive possession does not create legal ownership or tenancy rights. The judgment reinforced the broad application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, emphasizing the need for summary disposal where admissions are clear.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The appellants failed to produce any valid legal document (e.g., gift deed or sale deed) to substantiate their claim of ownership or tenancy over the disputed property.
2. The argument of possession being based on “love and affection” was dismissed as legally untenable, as permissive occupation does not confer ownership.
3. The appellants’ admission in the written statement about their willingness to vacate negated their claim for unconditional possession.
4. The court noted that the appellants had already filed a separate suit against the respondents to assert their alleged right to construct a staircase. However, this had no bearing on the issue of possession.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment and decree for recovery of possession, ruling that:

• The appellants, as successors of a permissive user, had no legal or equitable right to continue possession of the property.
• The admissions in their pleadings eliminated the need for a full trial.
• The appeal was dismissed, affirming that “the permissive user must vacate once the license is revoked, regardless of any unrelated disputes.”

Implications:

1. This judgment underscores the legal position that permissive users cannot assert ownership or tenancy rights in the absence of valid documentation.
2. It reinforces the application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC as a tool to expedite litigation in cases with unequivocal admissions.
3. Property owners are encouraged to ensure proper documentation (e.g., lease or license agreements) to avoid disputes over permissive possession.

Also Read – Supreme Court Quashes Flawed Recruitment Process for Class-IV Posts: “Appointments Made Through Unconstitutional Process Cannot Be Sustained; Fresh Advertisement Directed With Age Relaxation”