Occupant claiming possession via unproven oral agreement to sell is liable for ejectment and mesne profits.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No.1) is the registered owner of a commercial property in Karol Bagh, purchased in 2003.

He leased the premises to Defendant No.1 via a registered Lease Deed in 2007 at a monthly rent of ₹7,000, with an 11-month escalation clause.

The Plaintiff alleged that rent was paid only until April 2020 by Defendants 2, 3, and 4 (relatives of Defendant No.1), after which they defaulted.

Following a legal notice terminating the lease on 05.01.2023, the Plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mesne profits.

Defendant No.4 (Appellant) contested the suit, claiming he had purchased the property from the Plaintiff’s stepmother, Smt. Bela Bose, via an oral agreement in 2012 for ₹70 Lakhs.

The Trial Court (LDJ) decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.

Defendant No.4 appealed the judgment while having already surrendered possession.

Whether the Defendant No. 1 had surrendered possession to the Plaintiff after the initial lease or continued to occupy it through Defendants 2, 3, and 4?

Whether there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4?

Whether Defendant No. 4 entered into a valid oral agreement to sell with Smt. Bela Bose and paid the full consideration?

Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession and mesne profits?

The court applied the common law doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet, which holds that no one can transfer a better title than they themselves possess.

It also relied on the standard of proof in civil disputes, which is the "preponderance of probabilities".

Regarding evidence, the court applied the principles of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the burden of proof on the party asserting a fact (Defendant No.4 regarding the oral agreement) and the treatment of hostile witnesses.

The Court found that Defendant No.1 failed to prove he had surrendered possession after the initial 11 months, as he did not testify; thus, the tenancy continued.

Regarding Defendant No.4’s claim of ownership, the Court noted a total lack of documentary evidence.

Defendant No.4 could not produce a receipt for the alleged ₹70 Lakhs payment nor prove that Smt. Bela Bose ever held title to the property.

The Court invoked nemo dat quod non habet, stating a purchaser must verify a vendor's title.

Furthermore, Defendant No.4’s own witness, Smt. Bela Bose, denied receiving the money or sending the WhatsApp messages relied upon by him.

Applying the "preponderance of probabilities," the Court inferred that Defendant No.4 obtained possession through his familial link to the original lessee (Defendant No.1) rather than a sale.

Once the Plaintiff lawfully terminated the lease of Defendant No.1, Defendant No.4's occupation became unauthorized as he held no independent title.

It held that Defendant No.4 had no independent right to the property and his possession was wholly unauthorized.

The Court affirmed the decree for possession and the award of mesne profits at ₹12,000 per month with a 10% annual escalation, finding the amount equitable given NCT Delhi's market trends.

The appeal and pending applications were dismissed.