Facts
The Appellant (tenant) was inducted into the Suit Property by erstwhile owners, Mr. and Smt. Barua, via a Lease Deed dated 19.05.2023 for 11 months at a monthly rent of ₹27,000
Source reference: p.2The Respondents purchased the property from the Baruas on 27.08.2024 through a registered Agreement to Sell, GPA, and Will
Source reference: p.2-3The Respondents served a Legal Notice on 29.08.2024 attesting to the transfer of ownership and demanding arrears of rent/vacation of premises
Source reference: p.3The Appellant contested the Suit for Possession, challenging the Respondents' title, alleging a separate oral agreement for reconstruction costs, and claiming the Lease Deed was forged
Source reference: p.3-4, 8The Trial Court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leading to this appeal
Source reference: p.2, 5Issues
1. Whether there was a clear, unambiguous admission of a landlord-tenant relationship and the rate of rent to warrant a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
Source reference: p.15 / para. 662. Whether the Respondents had the locus standi to seek eviction as "landlords" based on the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA
Source reference: p.5 / para. 203. Whether the Appellant's plea of an oral agreement for reconstruction constituted a valid defense or a "moonshine" defense
Source reference: p.12 / para. 49, p.15 / para. 61Law Applied
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which permits the court to pronounce judgment based on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise
Source reference: p.2, 5Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the principle of estoppel, which prevents a tenant from denying the title of the landlord who inducted them
Source reference: p.18-19Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as interpreted in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi and Bimla Chopra v. Kuldeep, holding that a transferee under a registered Agreement to Sell/GPA acquires possessory title sufficient to maintain an eviction suit
Source reference: p.14The rule from Badat & Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. stating that evasive or non-specific denials in a Written Statement amount to admissions under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC
Source reference: p.14-15Reasoning
The Court found that while the Appellant challenged the "genuineness" of the Lease Deed, she failed to specifically deny her status as a tenant or provide any other legal basis for her occupation
Source reference: para. 65, 66The Court analyzed bank statements showing transfers of exactly ₹27,000 to the erstwhile owners, which corroborated the rent amount mentioned in the Lease Deed and discredited the Appellant's claim that these were "reconstruction funds"
Source reference: para. 71-72Regarding locus standi, the Court held that the Respondents stepped into the shoes of the previous owners via registered documents (ATS/GPA); once the Appellant was served the notice of attornment on 29.08.2024, a jural relationship was established
Source reference: para. 56, 81The Court dismissed the Appellant's claim of an oral agreement for reconstruction as a "sham/moonshine" defense because no specifics were provided and no construction had commenced since May 2023
Source reference: para. 67, 68, 73Holding
The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, holding that there were sufficient admissions regarding the tenancy and the rate of rent to satisfy Order XII Rule 6 CPC
The Court answered that the Respondents, having possessory title and having issued a notice of attornment, were the lawful landlords entitled to possession
Source reference: para. 79, 81The Appeal was dismissed, and the decree for recovery of possession and Mesne Profits was upheld
Source reference: para. 82Original Court PDF
Smt Chetna SikdarvsVinod Kumar Mehta
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in