A permissive user cannot create a tenancy binding the owner or defeat the owner’s possession rights.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the third-floor premises at property no. 2433, Gali Abdul Qadir, Delhi, from Mst. Zanab Bi through her registered GPA-holder, Mohd. Saleem, by a registered Sale Deed dated 11 November 2010 for ₹3,60,000.

After execution of the Sale Deed and delivery of possession, Mohd. Saleem was permitted to remain in the premises temporarily and without payment of licence fee. He subsequently inducted the appellant, Mohd. Asif, into the premises under alleged rent agreements.

After discovering the appellant’s occupation, the respondents terminated the permissive arrangement by legal notice dated 19 September 2015 and sought possession, damages and mesne profits.

The Trial Court decreed possession in favour of the respondents, awarded ₹24,928 towards user charges for August and September 2015, mesne profits at ₹500 per day, and interest at 6% per annum, while dismissing the appellant’s counter-claim.

Whether the respondents, as registered owners under the Sale Deed dated 11 November 2010, were entitled to recover possession from the appellant, who claimed through Mohd. Saleem, a permissive occupant and non-owner?

Whether the alleged tenancy between Mohd. Saleem and the appellant created any enforceable right against the respondents?

Whether the appellant could claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on the basis of the receipt or alleged agreement for sale involving payment of ₹7,50,000?

Whether closure of the appellant’s opportunity to cross-examine the respondents’ witnesses warranted remand or interference with the decree?

Whether the respondents were entitled to recover damages and mesne profits at the amounts awarded by the Trial Court, jointly from the defendants?

The Court applied Sections 96 and 151 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing regular first appeals and the appellate court’s inherent powers.

It applied the principle that a registered owner is entitled to recover possession from a person having no better title or enforceable right against the owner.

A permissive occupant cannot create or transfer an interest in the property adverse to the rights of the true owner, and any tenancy or sale transaction entered into by such occupant is ordinarily binding only inter se between the parties to that transaction.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, could not be invoked in the absence of a duly registered document where registration was compulsory; the Court relied on the registration requirement under Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Court further applied the rule that unrebutted evidence of prevailing market rent may be relied upon for assessing user and occupation charges or mesne profits, and that a defendant’s inter se monetary claim against an unauthorised intermediary does not defeat the owner’s right to recover occupation charges.

The Court also considered the procedural discretion governing adjournments and cross-examination, holding that interference was unwarranted where sufficient opportunities had been granted and no arbitrariness was shown.

The respondents’ ownership was established through the registered Sale Deed dated 11 November 2010 and was admitted by Mohd. Saleem and not disputed by the appellant.

Mohd. Saleem had entered possession only as a permissive user and therefore lacked authority to confer upon the appellant any right enforceable against the respondents.

Even assuming that the rent agreements between Mohd. Saleem and the appellant were genuine, they constituted only an inter se arrangement and could not bind the registered owners, who had not inducted the appellant or authorised Mohd. Saleem to create an adverse interest in the property.

The alleged payment of ₹7,50,000 could give the appellant a separate remedy against Mohd. Saleem but could not establish title or possession under Section 53A, particularly since the relied-upon receipt was unregistered.

The Court found no sufficient procedural prejudice from the closure of cross-examination because the appellant had received adequate opportunities and the material facts of ownership and induction through Mohd. Saleem were substantially admitted.

Finally, the respondents’ evidence regarding the prevailing rental value remained unrebutted; accordingly, the awards of ₹24,928 and ₹500 per day as user and occupation charges were upheld.

It held that Mohd. Saleem, being only a permissive occupant and not the owner, could not create tenancy or sale rights enforceable against the respondents.

The appellant was not entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and his remedy concerning the alleged payment of ₹7,50,000 lay against Mohd. Saleem alone.

The decree for possession, recovery of ₹24,928, mesne profits at ₹500 per day, and interest at 6% per annum was affirmed, with the defendants held jointly liable for the occupation charges.

The counter-claim and pending applications were also disposed of.