Domestic Worker’s Family Must Vacate Flat They Said He Was Buying Through Salary Deductions: Delhi HC Upholds Possession Decree

The respondent sued for possession of a flat, asserting ownership under a registered conveyance deed dated 23 June 2011 and claiming that the appellants’ deceased family member had been allowed to occupy it permissively.

The appellants claimed that he had agreed orally with the respondent’s father to purchase the property through monthly salary deductions.

The trial court decreed possession and permanent injunction, and awarded ₹3,00,000 in unauthorised use and occupation charges, with ₹12,000 per month payable if the appellants did not vacate within three months.

In their first appeal under Section 96 CPC, the appellants challenged the merits and contended that they had been deprived of an opportunity to lead defence evidence after being proceeded ex parte.

Section 96 CPC provides for a first appeal from an original decree.

An alleged oral agreement, without proof or executed sale documents, does not establish ownership in the property; nor does mere permissive or long possession confer title.

In M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728, the Supreme Court held that, in an eviction action under the general law, institution of the suit communicates the intention to terminate the tenancy and seek possession, making a separate notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act unnecessary.

Where a party’s grievance is that an ex parte decree was made in its absence, the appropriate remedy is an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC; that grievance, by itself, is not a ground to challenge the decree in the appeal.

The respondent’s registered conveyance deed, together with official property-tax and water-connection records, supported her ownership and entitlement to possession.

The appellants produced no evidence proving the alleged oral sale or the asserted salary deductions; in any event, the alleged arrangement did not establish that title had passed to the deceased occupant.

The court also found that the pleadings disclosed the permissive nature of the occupation and that the suit itself communicated the respondent’s demand for possession, so a separate termination notice was unnecessary.

The appellants’ complaint about being proceeded against ex parte did not undermine the decree in this appeal; the court identified an Order IX Rule 13 CPC application as the appropriate remedy.

The appeal was dismissed, and the pending applications were disposed of; the trial court’s decree, including the possession and injunction relief and the monetary directions, remained undisturbed.