Admission of tenancy and possessory title under registered transfer documents justify a summary decree for possession.

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

The Respondents purchased the property from the Baruas on 27.08.2024 through a registered Agreement to Sell, GPA, and Will

The Respondents served a Legal Notice on 29.08.2024 attesting to the transfer of ownership and demanding arrears of rent/vacation of premises

The 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

The Trial Court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leading to this appeal

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

2. Whether the Respondents had the locus standi to seek eviction as "landlords" based on the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA

3. Whether the Appellant's plea of an oral agreement for reconstruction constituted a valid defense or a "moonshine" defense

Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which permits the court to pronounce judgment based on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise

Section 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

Section 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

The 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

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

The 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"

Regarding 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

The 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

The Court answered that the Respondents, having possessory title and having issued a notice of attornment, were the lawful landlords entitled to possession

The Appeal was dismissed, and the decree for recovery of possession and Mesne Profits was upheld