Tenant Cannot Claim Ownership Or Protect Possession Under Section 53A Without Registered Agreement To Sell: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case: Ramesh Chandra Dubey & Anr. v. Nandlal / connected RFA
Case Nos.: RFA 482/2023 and RFA 11/2024
Reserved On: 18 March 2026
Pronounced On: 10 June 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5095
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed both Regular First Appeals filed by Ramesh Chandra Dubey and Sanjay Dubey. The Court upheld the learned ADJ’s orders by which Nandlal’s suit for possession had been decreed and Sanjay Dubey’s suit for specific performance had been dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The Court held that the appellants had entered the property as tenants/permissive occupants and could not claim ownership merely on the basis of an alleged oral or unsigned Agreement to Sell. Since no concluded, signed, written or registered Agreement to Sell existed, Sanjay Dubey could not resist eviction or claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Facts
Nandlal was the owner of Flat No. 126, Maitri Apartments, IP Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi. According to Sanjay Dubey, Nandlal had agreed to sell the flat to him for ₹19.50 lakh through a mediator, Mr. Choubey. Sanjay Dubey claimed that Nandlal was to get the flat converted into freehold and then execute the sale deed within three months.
Sanjay Dubey stated that he shifted into the flat on 01.06.2007 with his family, renovated it, paid ₹9,000 per month, and allegedly paid amounts including ₹5 lakh in January 2008, ₹12,000 towards house tax, and ₹7 lakh in October 2011. He claimed that a stamp paper Agreement to Sell was prepared in September 2008 but Nandlal did not execute it, and later an agreement was allegedly prepared on plain paper on 24.10.2008.
Nandlal denied any Agreement to Sell. His case was that Ramesh Chandra Dubey, father of Sanjay Dubey, had been inducted as a tenant from 01.06.2007 at ₹9,000 per month, excluding water, electricity and other charges. He alleged that the Dubeys defaulted in rent, continued in possession even after termination of tenancy, and relied on forged/fabricated documents to avoid eviction.
Nandlal filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent, damages and user/occupation charges. Sanjay Dubey filed a separate suit for specific performance and injunction.
Issues
- Whether Sanjay Dubey and Ramesh Chandra Dubey were tenants/permissive occupants or had entered the property pursuant to an enforceable Agreement to Sell.
- Whether the learned ADJ was right in passing judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
- Whether Sanjay Dubey could seek specific performance when the alleged Agreements to Sell were not signed by Nandlal.
- Whether the appellants could claim protection of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act without a registered Agreement to Sell.
- Whether the decree for possession in favour of Nandlal deserved interference in appeal.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that the learned ADJ wrongly decided disputed questions of fact without trial. They contended that there were serious disputes regarding whether the property was actually let out as a tenancy or handed over pursuant to a sale transaction.
They argued that Nandlal had made contradictory statements regarding tenancy, and that there was doubt about who the actual tenant was. They further submitted that in a cooperative housing society, renting usually requires formalities such as tripartite agreement, police verification, security deposit and society permissions, which were allegedly absent.
They also claimed that the Agreements to Sell dated 12.09.2008 and 24.10.2008, the payment of ₹16,65,000, and Sanjay Dubey’s readiness and willingness required a full trial. Therefore, according to them, the specific performance suit could not have been dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Respondent’s Arguments
Nandlal argued that he was the admitted owner of the property and had only inducted Ramesh Chandra Dubey as a tenant at ₹9,000 per month from 01.06.2007. He stated that the tenancy was oral and that the cheques issued towards rent were dishonoured on several occasions.
He further argued that Sanjay Dubey had admitted in another proceeding before the Delhi High Court that he was residing in the property on rent at ₹9,000 per month. Nandlal contended that this admission directly contradicted the claim that the appellants were in possession as purchasers.
Nandlal also denied signing any Agreement to Sell and alleged that the documents relied upon by Sanjay Dubey were forged and fabricated. He submitted that no concluded contract existed and, therefore, no specific performance could be granted.
Analysis
The High Court noted that Nandlal’s ownership of the suit property was not seriously disputed. The Court found that Ramesh Chandra Dubey had not specifically denied the case that he was inducted as a tenant and had only claimed that possession was linked to an Agreement to Sell.
The Court also found that the appellants admitted payment of ₹9,000 per month till February 2012, though they tried to describe it as part-payment towards sale consideration. The Court held that the pleadings and documents reflected that the appellants had entered and continued in possession on payment of ₹9,000 per month.
A major factor against the appellants was Sanjay Dubey’s admission in another High Court proceeding, where it was recorded that he was living in rented accommodation at ₹9,000 per month and had placed rent proof on record. The High Court held that this supported the finding of landlord-tenant relationship.
On the alleged Agreements to Sell, the Court observed that even according to Sanjay Dubey, Nandlal never signed the stamp paper agreement. The later plain-paper agreement also did not bear Nandlal’s signature. Therefore, there was no formal, concluded Agreement to Sell.
The Court held that a mere reference to negotiations for purchase or an NOC for gas connection could not be treated as an acknowledgement of a binding Agreement to Sell.
Precedent
The Court relied on the following principles and precedents:
- M/s Jagdambey Builders v. J.S. Vohra, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 765
A tenant cannot continue in possession merely on the basis of an Agreement to Sell. - Jiwan Das v. Narain Das, AIR 1981 Delhi 291
No right accrues to an agreement purchaser in the property until a conveyance deed is executed, even after a decree of specific performance. - Abdul Hakim Mia v. Pana Mia Miaji, AIR 1919 Calcutta 293
A lessee cannot alter the character of his possession without the landlord’s consent. - M.R. Sawhney v. Doris Randhawa, AIR 2008 Delhi 110
Once a tenant, always a tenant, unless the status changes by contract or operation of law. - Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC 332
A licensee cannot set up title in himself while continuing in possession after revocation. - Md. Raza v. Geeta, (2022) 13 SCC 756
A person cannot claim ownership merely on the basis of an Agreement to Sell unless a decree is passed and sale deed is executed. - Uma Hada v. Sunil Gupta, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3009 and Pawandeep Singh v. Gurdeep Singh Virdi, 2019 (7) AD (Del) 506
Protection under Section 53A TPA requires a registered document after Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act.
Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the appellants’ own pleadings showed that no signed Agreement to Sell was executed by Nandlal. Even if negotiations had taken place, negotiations do not create ownership rights.
The Court held that once the appellants had entered the premises as tenants/permissive users, their status could not automatically transform into ownership merely because they claimed that a sale transaction was being negotiated.
The Court further held that Section 53A TPA protection was unavailable because there was no registered Agreement to Sell. Therefore, even if the appellants claimed possession pursuant to a proposed sale, they could not legally protect their possession without a registered instrument.
The Court found no infirmity in the learned District Judge’s decree for possession in favour of Nandlal and also upheld the dismissal of Sanjay Dubey’s suit for specific performance.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed both appeals. It upheld:
- the decree of possession in favour of Nandlal; and
- the dismissal of Sanjay Dubey’s suit for specific performance.
The Court held that the appellants were tenants/permissive occupants and had no enforceable ownership right in the suit property on the basis of an unsigned and unregistered alleged Agreement to Sell.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that a tenant cannot resist eviction merely by claiming that there were negotiations for sale of the property. Unless there is a valid, signed and registered Agreement to Sell, possession cannot be protected under Section 53A TPA.
The ruling is important for property disputes where tenants or occupants rely on alleged oral agreements or unsigned sale documents to defeat eviction proceedings. It also confirms that admissions made in pleadings or in earlier proceedings can be sufficient for passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, where the essential facts are clear.
