Tenant Denies Possession Because Lease Was Never Registered; Delhi High Court Says Oral Agreement and Delivery of Premises Can Create Landlord-Tenant Relationship Without Registered Deed
No Registered Lease Deed but Tenant Takes Premises and Installs Fitments; Delhi High Court Upholds Decree Directing Restoration of Possession to Owner
Facts
The appeal arose from a decree for possession passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in favour of Dinesh Mittal, owner of property at C-3/122, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Jagdish Kumar Arora challenged the decree before the Delhi High Court under Section 96 CPC. JAGDISH KUMAR
In February 2020, the appellant approached the owner through a broker for taking the basement premises on rent for his coaching/educational activities. The parties negotiated the lease terms, including rent, lock-in period and fitment period. JAGDISH KUMAR
The arrangement ultimately contemplated a one-year lock-in period. The appellant paid a ₹2.50 lakh security deposit, which was encashed, and renovation/fitment work was carried out in the premises. JAGDISH KUMAR
However, the formal registered lease deed was never executed. The dispute was whether, despite the absence of registration, the appellant had been put in possession and whether the owner could obtain a decree for possession on admissions.
The appellant contended that registration of the lease was a condition precedent, that keys remained with the landlord’s watchman and that he merely had access to the premises for carrying out fitment work. JAGDISH KUMAR
The Trial Court nevertheless decreed possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leading to the present appeal. JAGDISH KUMAR
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether there were clear and unequivocal admissions sufficient to decree possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
- Whether possession could be established despite the appellant’s contention that the keys remained with the landlord’s watchman.
- Whether a landlord-tenant relationship could arise despite the absence of an executed and registered lease deed.
- Whether the owner’s second suit for possession was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC because an earlier suit for rent, damages and mesne profits was already pending.
Appellant’s Arguments
Jagdish Kumar Arora argued that he had never unequivocally admitted possession. According to him, the negotiations, WhatsApp exchanges, token receipts and unsigned draft lease merely represented preparatory steps toward a proposed tenancy. JAGDISH KUMAR
He asserted that the registered lease deed was a condition precedent and that no landlord-tenant relationship could arise until registration.
He also relied upon the Local Commissioner’s proceedings, particularly the fact that the landlord himself opened the rainwater reservoir room, to contend that possession remained with the landlord. JAGDISH KUMAR
The appellant further argued that the second suit for possession was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC because the landlord had already instituted another suit concerning rent and related monetary claims.
Respondent’s Case
The owner relied principally upon the appellant’s own admissions.
The appellant had admitted that he negotiated to take the premises on rent, agreed to rent, paid ₹2.50 lakh as security, entered the premises and undertook substantial renovation and fitment work.
According to the respondent, these admitted facts established possession regardless of whether the formal lease deed was ultimately registered.
Analysis of the Law
Possession Established From Tenant’s Own Pleadings
The High Court found that the appellant’s written statement itself contained the material admissions.
He admitted negotiations for taking the premises on rent, a monthly rent of ₹64,500, a one-year lock-in period and payment of the ₹2.50 lakh security deposit. JAGDISH KUMAR
More significantly, the Court held that possession had been handed over for carrying out fitments. Renovation commenced in February 2020, stopped during the COVID lockdown, resumed on 6 May 2020 and was completed on 17 May 2020. JAGDISH KUMAR
The appellant attempted to distinguish between having “access” for fitment work and having legal possession because the keys were allegedly kept with the landlord’s watchman.
The Court rejected that distinction. Keeping keys with the watchman for security could not erase the factual position that the appellant was occupying and renovating the premises. His own detailed pleadings established possession. JAGDISH KUMAR
Landlord-Tenant Relationship Not Essential for Possession Decree
The Court went further and held that even establishing a formal tenancy was not indispensable to the owner’s claim for possession.
Whether the appellant occupied the premises as a tenant, licensee or occupant, the admitted owner was entitled to recover possession. JAGDISH KUMAR
This substantially weakened the appellant’s argument that the absence of a registered lease deed defeated the possession suit.
Precedent Analysis
The key precedent was the Supreme Court’s decision in Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons, (2003) 6 SCC 394.
The High Court relied on Anthony for the proposition that a lease represents a transfer of the right to enjoy immovable property in consideration of rent and may, in appropriate circumstances, arise independently of an ineffective or unregistered written instrument.
Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act permits leases falling outside the category requiring compulsory registration to be created through an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. JAGDISH KUMAR
The Court emphasised that the existence of an unregistered document does not prevent the court from examining the parties’ conduct to determine whether a lease relationship otherwise came into existence. JAGDISH KUMAR
Applying Anthony, the High Court noted that Jagdish Kumar Arora himself admitted:
- agreement to take the premises;
- agreed monthly rent;
- commencement of rent from 15 March 2020;
- payment and encashment of ₹2.50 lakh security;
- possession of the premises; and
- installation of fittings, fixtures and signboards.
The fact that rent had not actually commenced did not assist him because Anthony covers not merely rent actually paid but also rent agreed to be paid. JAGDISH KUMAR
Order II Rule 2 CPC
The appellant’s second major defence also failed.
He argued that because the landlord had already filed a suit for recovery of rent, damages and mesne profits, the subsequent suit seeking possession was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s reasoning that the two proceedings rested on distinct causes of action: the earlier proceeding concerned recovery of rent, whereas the present proceeding sought recovery of possession.
Consequently, the possession suit was not barred under Order II Rule 2. JAGDISH KUMAR
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the appellant’s attempt to create factual disputes could not overcome his own admissions.
For the possession claim, the material facts were essentially undisputed: the respondent owned the property; the appellant negotiated to occupy it; rent was agreed; security was paid; possession/access was provided; and extensive fitment work was undertaken.
Whether the formal tenancy ultimately came into existence and whether rent or other monetary amounts remained payable could be adjudicated separately. The Court expressly observed that the issue concerning arrears of rent remained open for determination in the appropriate proceedings. JAGDISH KUMAR
Thus, a full trial was unnecessary merely to decide the owner’s entitlement to possession.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was correctly passed.
The absence of a registered lease deed did not enable the appellant to deny possession when his own pleadings showed that he entered the property, agreed upon rent, paid security and undertook substantial renovations.
The Court also rejected the Order II Rule 2 objection and held that disputes regarding payments and recoveries could continue separately, but there was no genuine dispute requiring trial insofar as possession was concerned.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed. JAGDISH KUMAR
Case Details
Case: Jagdish Kumar Arora v. Dinesh Mittal
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: RFA 553/2025, CM APPL. 36615/2025
CNR No.: DLHC010379602025 JAGDISH KUMAR
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna JAGDISH KUMAR
Reserved: 30 July 2026
Pronounced: 29 September 2026 JAGDISH KUMAR
Result: Appeal dismissed; decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC upheld. Monetary disputes concerning rent/payments remain to be determined in the separate pending proceedings.
