A pre-suit property transfer bars summary possession decree until the former landlord’s locus is determined.

Rani inducted Sukla Sikder as a tenant in the suit premises under an 11-month rent agreement dated 19 September 2022, at a monthly rent of ₹9,000.

After the tenancy was terminated, Rani sued for possession and monetary relief.

The Trial Court decreed possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, relying on admissions concerning the tenancy, rent and notice; the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree.

In the second appeal, Sikder relied on a registered Sale Deed dated 12 September 2023, executed before the suit was instituted, by which Rani had transferred the property to third parties.

The First Appellate Court had refused to admit the deed as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The High Court framed a substantial question of law concerning Rani’s locus standi and entitlement to recover possession and rent after the transfer.

Whether a former landlord who transferred the tenanted property before filing suit retained locus standi and entitlement to seek possession and rent, particularly where the transferees were not impleaded.

Whether the possession decree could be entered under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without determining the legal effect of the pre-suit transfer on the plaintiff’s entitlement.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a sale transfers ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised; Section 109 provides that, absent a contract to the contrary, a transferee of the lessor’s interest possesses the lessor’s rights in respect of the property transferred.

The Court relied on Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Haradeb Banerjee, (1991) 4 SCC 572, for the principle that ownership comprises rights including possession, enjoyment and alienation, and that an absolute transfer carries legal consequences that must be considered.

It also considered Order XII Rule 6 CPC, under which judgment may be entered on admissions, and Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, which governs the admission of additional evidence on appeal.

The Sale Deed pre-dated the suit and, on its terms, transferred Rani’s rights, title and interest in the property to the purchasers without reserving a right to recover possession or receive subsequent rent.

The deed therefore raised a material question about whether Rani retained any entitlement to sue, particularly as the purchasers were not parties to the proceedings.

The Court held that this question could not be resolved merely by relying on the tenant’s admissions concerning the tenancy, rent and notice.

It also held that the deed and relevant communications with the purchasers were material and should have been admitted as additional evidence.

The possible entitlement to arrears accruing before the sale remained for determination at trial.

It restored the suit and remanded it to the Trial Court to determine Rani’s locus standi, the legal effect of the Sale Deed, and the parties’ respective entitlements to possession, rent and mesne profits, without expressing a final view on those merits.