Unregistered Agreement to Sell Cannot Shield Tenant Possession from Eviction Under Section 53A Transfer of Property Act.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a suit for possession, recovery of rent, and mesne profits against the Appellants (Defendants) regarding property J-64/G-1, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi

Appellant No. 1 was initially inducted as a tenant via a registered lease deed dated 15.04.2010 at a rent of ₹12,000 per month

On 03.08.2011, the Respondent entered into an Agreement to Sell with Appellant No. 2 (father of Appellant No. 1) for ₹35 Lakhs, of which the Respondent admitted receiving ₹29.5 Lakhs

Clause 7 of the Agreement to Sell specifically stipulated that Appellant No. 2 would continue to stay as a tenant and pay rent as per the lease agreement until the execution of the sale deed

The sale deed was never executed, and the Respondent issued a notice of forfeiture/termination on 19.03.2018

The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC based on admissions

1. Whether an unregistered Agreement to Sell creates an interest in the property that allows a tenant to resist a decree of possession

2. Whether the Appellants were entitled to protection of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

3. Whether the conditions for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC (judgment on admissions) were satisfied

The Court applied Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates that a contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on the property

It relied on Jiwan Das v. Narain Das (AIR 1981 Delhi 291) to establish that a contract for sale creates a right in personam and not in estate

following the 2001 amendment to Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908, the court held that documents seeking protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act must be registered to have any legal effect for that purpose

The court also cited Pawandeep Singh v. Gurdeep Singh Virdi and Parveen Saini v. Reetu Kapur to affirm that unregistered agreements cannot shield a tenant's possession

the court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC regarding judgments based on admissions

The Court observed that the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, as Clause 7 of the Agreement to Sell explicitly stated that Appellant No. 2 would remain a tenant paying monthly rent until the registration of the sale deed

The Court reasoned that since the Agreement to Sell dated 03.08.2011 was unregistered, the Appellants could not invoke Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to protect their possession

The Court clarified that the status of a tenant does not automatically cease upon signing an agreement to sell; it only terminates upon the execution of a registered sale deed

Since the three essential ingredients—landlord-tenant relationship, termination of tenancy via notice, and rent exceeding ₹3,500—were admitted or established, the Trial Court was justified in passing a summary judgment

The Court held that the Appellants remained tenants in the eyes of the law despite the Agreement to Sell, as the agreement was unregistered and the sale deed was never executed

the Respondent was entitled to a decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. All pending applications were dismissed