Tenant cannot resist eviction or claim ownership based on an unregistered and unsigned Agreement to Sell.

The Respondent (Nandlal), owner of Flat No. 126, Maitri Apartments, inducted Ramesh Chandra Dubey as a tenant in June 2007 at a monthly rent of ₹9,000.

The Appellants (Sanjay Dubey and his father Ramesh) claimed they entered possession pursuant to an oral Agreement to Sell for ₹19.50 lakhs and had paid ₹16.65 lakhs over time.

Sanjay Dubey filed a suit for Specific Performance, while Nandlal filed a suit for possession and arrears of rent.

The Appellants admitted to paying ₹9,000 monthly but termed it part-sale consideration.

In a separate 2009 litigation, Sanjay Dubey had submitted proof of residence as a "tenant" at ₹9,000 per month.

The Trial Court (ADJ) invoked Order XII Rule 6 CPC to decree Nandlal’s suit for possession and dismiss Sanjay’s suit for specific performance based on these admissions.

1. Whether the Appellants’ admissions in pleadings and prior proceedings regarding their status as tenants warranted a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. Whether an oral or unsigned Agreement to Sell can supersede a landlord-tenant relationship and provide protection of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which empowers courts to pass a judgment based on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise.

Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the lessee's obligation to restore possession.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that any agreement to sell used for the defense of part-performance must be a registered document.

Doctrine from Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, establishing that a licensee/tenant cannot challenge the owner's title without first surrendering possession.

Precedent from M/s Jagtambey Builders v. J.S. Vohra, holding that a tenant cannot acquire a right to stay based on an Agreement to Sell.

The Court found that there was no "concluded contract" because the Appellants admitted the Respondent never signed the purported Agreements to Sell dated 11.09.2008 or 24.10.2008.

The Court reasoned that the Appellants' payment of ₹9,000 monthly since 2007—long before the alleged 2008 written agreements—corroborated the landlord's claim of tenancy.

Sanjay Dubey’s own admission of being a "tenant" in CS(OS) 1545/2009 constituted a clear admission under Order XII Rule 6.

The Court noted that even if the Agreements to Sell were valid, they were unregistered; thus, the Appellants were barred from seeking protection against eviction under Section 53A of the TPA.

The court emphasized the principle "once a tenant, always a tenant," ruling that a tenant's status does not metamorphose into that of an owner through an unexecuted agreement.

The suit for Specific Performance was rightly dismissed because there was no concluded or registered contract to transfer title.

The High Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the Trial Court's judgments, and ordered the Appellants to vacate the premises and remain liable for user and occupation charges.