An unregistered agreement to sell does not create an interest in the property or grant possessory rights. A tenant remains a tenant until a formal, registered sale deed is executed, and a landlord-tenant relationship admitted in pleadings is sufficient grounds for a summary decree of possession.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), has been filed on behalf of the Appellants, against Judgment dated 07.05.2022, whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for decree of Possession against the Defendants/Appellants, was decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent had filed Civil Suit No.125/2018 for Possession/Ejectment, Recovery of Rent, Mesne Profit and Damages.

3. The facts, in brief, are that Plaintiff stated himself to be the owner/landlord of the Property bearing No. J-64/G-1, (Ground Floor), Right Hand Side, Gali No. 4, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Suit Property’), consisting of three bedrooms, one drawing-cum dining room, kitchen, toilet/bathroom vide registered partition Deed dated 01.01.2010. The Defendant, Mr. Kailash Chand was inducted as a tenant in the Suit Property vide registered Lease Deed dated 15.04.2010 for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 11.04.2010, at a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- per month. The Lease Deed was executed between the Defendant and the Attorney of the Plaintiff.

4. The Defendant was claimed to be a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and failed to pay rent since 10.04.2011, despite repeated requests. The Plaintiff thus, issued a Legal Notice since the Defendant neither vacated the premises on expiry of the Lease Deed nor paid the rent w.e.f. 01.04.2011.

5. Thereafter, a Suit for Possession, Arrears of Rent and Damages, was filed by the Plaintiff.

6. The Defendant/Appellant, Mr. Kailash Chand in his Written Statement, took the preliminary objection that the Plaintiff had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 03.08.2011 with Mr. Tejpal Singh, father of the Defendant and thereafter, had received rent regularly from Mr. Tejpal Singh as agreed under the Agreement, which is evident from the Legal Notices issued by the Plaintiff to the defendant No.2 Tejpal, father of the Defendant no.1, Kailash Chand, claiming balance payment under the Agreement to Sell dated 03.08.2011 wherein the Plaintiff has not made a whisper about the balance rent. The Suit has been filed only to pressurise the Defendant and his mother, to extort more money.

7. The Suit was bad for non-joinder of the proper parties. The cause of action arose on 10.04.2011, while the Suit had been filed in the year 2018 and was liable to be dismissed. No cause of action was disclosed in the Plaint as the Plaintiff had already entered into an Agreement to Sell with Mr. Tejpal Singh, father of the Defendant.

8. On merits, the averments made in the Plaint, were denied. It was admitted that the Defendant, Kailash Chand was the tenant of the Plaintiff till 03.08.2011 when the Plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell with Tejpal Singh, father of the Defendant. The sale consideration was agreed as Rs.35,00,000/-, though the Plaintiff failed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Mr. Tejpal Singh.

9. Due to some financial crunch, Mr. Tejpal Singh failed to make the payment in time and the execution of the Sale Deed was extended by the Plaintiff from time to time, under the threat of forfeiture of earnest money. The Plaintiff against the total sale consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-, received Rs.40,00,000/- from Mr. Tejpal Singh though, on one pretext or the other, he kept avoiding the execution