A disputed Agreement to Sell defence precludes a possession decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Raj Rani Uppal instituted two suits for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages/mesne profits and injunction in respect of the Upper Ground Floor and Third Floor of Property No. 36/7, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

Rahul Chaudhary admitted that he had initially entered the Upper Ground Floor as a tenant under a Rent Agreement dated 31 August 2016 at a monthly rent of ₹32,000, but contended that the tenancy was terminated by an Agreement to Sell dated 16 November 2016 executed in favour of himself and Kamal Kant Sharma.

The Agreement recorded payment of ₹15,00,000 as earnest money, cancellation of the rent agreement and termination of the tenancy.

The appellants claimed that an aggregate amount of ₹43,20,000 had subsequently been paid towards the sale consideration and that possession of the Third Floor was delivered to them in furtherance of the Agreement to Sell.

The plaintiff denied executing the Agreement to Sell and alleged that it was forged and fabricated.

She maintained that the payments received from the appellants were towards rent and that the appellants continued to occupy the premises as tenants.

The Trial Court decreed both suits for possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, principally holding that the unregistered Agreement to Sell could not protect possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in view of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The appellants challenged those decrees in the present appeals.

Whether the pleadings contained a clear, unequivocal and unconditional admission of a subsisting landlord–tenant relationship so as to justify a decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC?

Whether the Trial Court could decree possession merely because the unregistered Agreement to Sell could not be relied upon for protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

Whether the effect, genuineness, enforceability and legal consequences of the Agreement to Sell, including the alleged surrender or termination of tenancy, required adjudication by a full trial?

The Court applied Order XII Rule 6 CPC, under which judgment on admissions is discretionary and may be granted only where the admission is clear, categorical, unequivocal and unconditional.

Under Sections 111(e) and 111(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a tenancy may be surrendered expressly or by implication where the parties’ subsequent agreement or conduct is inconsistent with continuation of the tenancy.

Section 53A TPA provides protection to possession in cases of part performance, but Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 requires registration of contracts relied upon for Section 53A protection; an unregistered document cannot therefore operate for that statutory purpose.

However, under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered agreement may still be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or of a collateral transaction.

The Court relied on R. Kanthimathi v. Beatrice Xavier, (2000) 9 SCC 339, Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage, (1976) 3 SCC 660, S.M. Asif v. Virendra Kumar Bajaj, (2015) 9 SCC 287, Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4545/2022, and Vayyaeti Srinivasarao v. Gaineedi Jagajyothi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 84, for the principles governing surrender of tenancy and judgment on admissions.

The Court held that Rahul Chaudhary’s admission of his initial induction as a tenant did not amount to an admission that the tenancy continued, because he specifically pleaded that the Agreement to Sell expressly cancelled the Rent Agreement and terminated the tenancy.

Kamal Kant Sharma denied ever being a tenant and asserted that his possession of the Third Floor arose from the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent Receipt-cum-Possession Letter dated 10 January 2019.

The plaintiff disputed the execution and effect of the Agreement, while the appellants relied on substantial payments and a pending suit for specific performance.

These competing cases raised triable questions concerning the genuineness and enforceability of the Agreement, whether the tenancy had been expressly surrendered, and the legal character of the appellants’ possession.

The Court distinguished the question of whether the unregistered Agreement could protect possession under Section 53A TPA from the separate question of whether possession could be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Even if Section 53A protection was unavailable, that finding did not establish an unequivocal admission of a subsisting tenancy or automatically entitle the plaintiff to possession.

Since the Agreement could be considered as evidence of a contract in the pending specific-performance proceedings, the Trial Court erred in rejecting the defence at the admission stage.

It held that there was no clear, unequivocal and unconditional admission of a continuing landlord–tenant relationship, and that the disputed Agreement to Sell and the appellants’ asserted change in status from tenants to prospective purchasers could not be adjudicated under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The judgments and decrees dated 9 October 2024 and 15 October 2024 granting possession were accordingly set aside.

Both matters were remanded to the learned District Judge for adjudication on merits, with the parties directed to appear before the District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 17 September 2026.

The pending applications were disposed of accordingly.