Occupant Must Vacate Buyer’s Property Despite Seller’s Unrefunded ₹15 Lakh Advance, While Karnataka HC Sets Aside Rent Award

The respondent purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 22 August 2016.

The appellant had been a tenant of the vendor.

A memorandum of understanding dated 19 July 2016 recorded that the vendor would refund her advance of ₹15 lakh and that she would vacate after the sale; the vendor did not refund the amount, and she remained in possession.

The respondent sued for ejectment and monetary relief.

The trial court ordered her to vacate and awarded arrears of rent.

She appealed both the possession decree and the trial court’s treatment of her counterclaim concerning the advance.

The appeals were brought under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It applied the principles that an owner may recover possession from a person whose continued occupation is permissive, and that rent cannot be awarded by a claimant who has no landlord–tenant relationship with the occupier.

The court also observed that damages or mesne profits would have been the relevant claim for the respondent’s case, but that relief had not been sought in the plaint.

The respondent’s registered purchase established his ownership, while the appellant’s tenancy had been with the former owner, not with the respondent.

The court accepted that the respondent had permitted her to remain in possession; her continued occupation was therefore permissive, and the respondent was entitled to recover possession.

But because the appellant was not the respondent’s tenant, the trial court could not award the respondent arrears of rent.

As the respondent had not claimed damages or mesne profits, the rent award could not be sustained.

Although one appeal challenged the treatment of the counterclaim for the advance, the judgment did not grant the appellant a refund or otherwise expressly determine that claim in its final order.

The decree requiring the appellant to deliver vacant possession was confirmed, but the award of arrears of rent was set aside.

The appellant was permitted four months from the date of judgment to hand over the property, including the furniture and dining table, and was directed to file an affidavit of undertaking within three weeks.

No costs were ordered.