Supreme Court Upholds Eviction on Admission: Tenant’s Ownership Claim Dismissed

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mohd. Raza & Anr. v. Geeta @ Geeta Devi, addressed a significant legal issue concerning eviction on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The case, Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 2021, arose from an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s ruling that set aside a trial court’s order and passed a decree of eviction on admission. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated October 4, 2021, delivered by M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, upheld the eviction order, dismissing the tenant’s claim of ownership based on an agreement to sell.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when the respondent, Geeta @ Geeta Devi, filed a civil suit against the appellants, Mohd. Raza & Anr., for possession, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, and mesne profits regarding the property at 246/4, Ground Floor, East School Block, Mandawali, Delhi. The respondent-plaintiff asserted that she was the lawful owner of the suit property since January 15, 2013, and that the first appellant was her tenant under a rent agreement dated March 14, 2016.

The respondent-plaintiff alleged that the first appellant illegally sublet the premises to the second appellant without prior intimation. Consequently, she terminated the tenancy through a notice dated July 17, 2018, and sought possession of the premises.

Key Legal Issues Before the Court

Whether the High Court was justified in granting eviction on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Whether the appellant’s claim of ownership through an agreement to sell constituted a valid defense.
Whether a decree of eviction could be passed while a separate suit for specific performance was pending.

Trial Court’s Judgment

The appellants filed a written statement denying the respondent’s ownership. They claimed that:

The second appellant had purchased the property from the respondent through an agreement to sell dated January 15, 2017, and had paid Rs. 19 lakhs.
The second appellant was in possession as an owner and not as a sub-tenant.
The respondent had filed the suit to grab the money paid for the agreement to sell.
A separate suit for specific performance was already pending before the trial court.

The trial court dismissed the respondent’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, holding that there was no clear and unequivocal admission of tenancy or ownership.

High Court’s Judgment

The respondent-plaintiff challenged the trial court’s order before the Delhi High Court, which:

Set aside the trial court’s ruling.
Passed an eviction decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Held that an agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights unless followed by a registered sale deed or a decree for specific performance.
Ruled that the pending suit for specific performance did not prevent the respondent from enforcing her rights as the legal owner.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants, represented by their legal counsel, contended that:

The High Court erred in granting eviction on admission without considering their claim of ownership.
The second appellant had paid Rs. 19 lakhs to purchase the property, and a suit for specific performance was already pending.
The trial court had correctly ruled that there was no clear admission regarding tenancy or ownership.
The High Court’s decision deprived them of their legal remedy in the pending suit.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent-plaintiff countered that:

The written statement contained an unequivocal admission that the first appellant was a tenant.
An agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights in the absence of a registered sale deed.
The pending suit for specific performance was irrelevant to the eviction proceedings.
The High Court correctly applied Order XII Rule 6 of CPC to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that:

The appellants admitted in their written statement that the respondent was the owner.
The second appellant’s claim of ownership was not supported by any registered document and was merely a defense to delay eviction.
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC applies when there is a clear admission of ownership and tenancy.
The pending suit for specific performance had no bearing on the respondent’s right to recover possession.

Key Extract from the Judgment

“The High Court has rightly passed a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The defendants have admitted the ownership of the plaintiff and the tenancy in unequivocal terms. The plea of ownership based on an agreement to sell is untenable in law.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction order.
The High Court’s ruling was confirmed, subject to the outcome of the suit for specific performance.
The appellants were directed to vacate the premises within a reasonable time.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for eviction suits and ownership disputes based on agreements to sell. The judgment:

Reaffirms that an agreement to sell does not confer ownership without a registered sale deed.
Strengthens the use of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC in eviction cases where admissions exist.
Ensures that tenants cannot misuse ownership claims to delay eviction proceedings.
Sets a precedent that pending suits for specific performance do not affect eviction suits based on clear admissions.

This case establishes a crucial legal principle regarding tenancy, ownership claims, and eviction proceedings.

Petitioner Name: Mohd. Raza & Anr..
Respondent Name: Geeta @ Geeta Devi.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Mandawali, Delhi.
Judgment Date: 04-10-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: mohd.-raza-&-anr.-vs-geeta-@-geeta-devi-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-04-10-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Confirmed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category