Oral agreement to sell without written contract or registration cannot defeat landlord’s right to seek eviction.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of possession of Shop No. 2 (Suit Property) and arrears of rent against the Appellant (Defendant). The Plaintiff claimed ownership via a 2013 Gift Deed.

The Defendant was inducted as a tenant in 2014 via a registered rent agreement, followed by subsequent agreements in 2016 and 2018, the last of which expired on June 24, 2019, at a monthly rent of ₹50,000.

The Defendant ceased paying rent in March 2021.

In his defense, the Defendant alleged an oral agreement to sell the property for ₹80 lakhs, claiming to have paid ₹50 lakhs in cash between 2019–2020.

After the Plaintiff moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for a judgment on admissions, and while the matter was listed for orders, the Defendant attempted to file an amendment to the written statement and a counter-claim.

The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree for possession in favor of the Plaintiff, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s preliminary decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, based on alleged admissions, requires interference

2. Whether an alleged oral agreement to sell and subsequent cash payments create a legal right for the tenant to retain possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act

The court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which grants discretionary power to pass a judgment where there are clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal admissions of fact.

It relied on Pushpa v. Dayawati (2026) and Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. regarding the high threshold for "admissions".

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which requires a written, signed, and registered contract for a party to claim part-performance protection.

The court also cited The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B Gunashekar (2025) regarding the illegitimacy of substantial cash transactions in property deals under the Income Tax Act.

The court found that the landlord-tenant relationship and the rate of rent (exceeding Delhi Rent Control Act limits) were admitted.

The court rejected the Defendant’s plea of part-performance under Section 53A because there was no written agreement to sell; an oral agreement cannot provide legal protection against eviction.

Upon inspecting the original "receipts," the court noted severe discrepancies: the documents referred to the entire plot rather than just the shop, some mentioned loans or scooter payments, and one was on a 2008 stamp paper for a 2019 transaction.

The court held that the Defendant's attempt to file a counter-claim and amendment only after the Order XII Rule 6 application was heard demonstrated mala fides.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that alleged cash payments of ₹50 lakhs do not constitute valid legal tender for property transactions and do not inspire confidence.

It affirmed the Trial Court's preliminary decree for possession, noting that the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted and the tenancy had been terminated.

The Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the Appellant to be paid within four weeks.