### Oral Possession Claim Under Unauthorized Sale Agreement Cannot Defeat Registered Ownership Title In this appeal, the Court reviewed a decree for property recovery where the occupant claimed rights through an oral purchase agreement with a power of attorney holder. The Court found that the attorney lacked the specific authority to sell the property and that the occupant had previously made payments consistent with a tenancy. The Court concluded that in the absence of a registered sale deed or specific authorization to sell, the occupant could not establish legal title. Furthermore, the termination of the month-to-month tenancy via legal notice was held valid. The judgment affirmed the eviction order and the award of mesne profits, while allowing for the adjustment of excess payments made by the occupant. Would you like a summary of a specific legal issue addressed in this judgment?

The Respondents (owners of DDA Flat B-509, Rohini) filed a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits, and arrears of rent against the Appellant.

The Respondents claimed they authorized their Special Power of Attorney (SPA), Rajesh K. Ganvir, to manage the property, who then let it to the Appellant via an oral tenancy from September 2014 to July 2016.

The Appellant refused to vacate after the term expired.

The Appellant contended she was not a tenant but a prospective purchaser who entered an oral agreement to sell with the SPA for ₹85,00,000, having paid ₹27,00,000 in cash and additional amounts via bank transfer.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondents, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

2. Whether the Appellant could claim rights in the property based on an oral agreement to sell and a cash receipt executed by the SPA.

3. Whether the Respondents were entitled to a decree of possession and mesne profits.

Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding appellate jurisdiction.

An agent cannot bind a principal beyond the scope of specific authority under the Law of Agency.

Under the Transfer of Property Act, a lease not created by a registered instrument is deemed a month-to-month tenancy.

Presumption of service of legal notices for termination of tenancy and the requirement for written agreements for the sale of immovable property.

The Court examined the SPA dated 16.10.2014 and found it explicitly limited the agent's power to "registration and execution of Rent Agreement/Deed" and did not authorize the sale of the property.

Any alleged oral agreement to sell between the Appellant and the SPA could not bind the Respondents (owners).

The Court found that a bank transfer made from the Appellant's mobile phone to the Respondents' account—which the Appellant admitted—sufficiently established a landlord-tenant relationship, contradicting her claim of being a purchaser.

Since there was no registered lease deed, the tenancy was month-to-month and was validly terminated via legal notices under which the Appellant failed to prove non-service.

Even if the oral sale agreement existed, the Appellant had sought no specific performance and remained an unauthorized occupant after the termination of tenancy.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment affirming the decree for recovery of possession and the award of mesne profits at ₹11,00/month from 20.07.2016 until vacation, subject to the deduction of ₹1,84,000 already paid in excess.