The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on property and tenancy laws, has upheld a trial court’s decree for the recovery of possession and mesne profits against an occupant who claimed to have purchased a property through an uncorroborated oral agreement.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain, emphasized the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can transfer a better title than they possess) while dismissing the appeal filed by an unauthorized occupant of a Karol Bagh property.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a civil suit filed by the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1), who claimed to be the lawful owner of property bearing no. 13/31, WEA, Karol Bagh, purchased via a registered Sale Deed in June 2003. The property was leased to Defendant No. 1 in 2007 at a monthly rent of ₹7,000.
According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 continued to occupy the property through family members—his daughter (Defendant No. 2), son-in-law (Defendant No. 3), and the son-in-law’s brother, Sunmeet Singh (Defendant No. 4/Appellant). The Plaintiff alleged that rent was paid only until April 2020 at the rate of ₹12,000 per month. Following defaults, the lease was terminated via notice in January 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Defendant No. 4): Sunmeet Singh contested the suit, claiming he was not a tenant. He argued that he had entered into an oral agreement in 2012 to purchase the suit property from one Smt. Bela Bose (the Plaintiff’s stepmother) for ₹70 lakhs. He asserted that the entire amount had been paid by January 2022, but the sale deed was never executed. He further contended that there was no “privity of contract” between him and the Plaintiff.
Respondent (Plaintiff): The Plaintiff maintained that the property was leased to Defendant No. 1 and that Defendant No. 4 was merely an occupant through the original lessee. The Plaintiff produced the complete chain of title documents and evidence of the lease termination.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that Defendant No. 1 (the original lessee) failed to establish that he had surrendered possession after the initial lease period. Regarding the Appellant’s claim of purchase, the Court observed that no documentary evidence was produced to show that Smt. Bela Bose ever owned the property or had the authority to sell it.
The Bench remarked on the lack of evidence for the alleged ₹70 lakh payment:
“It is inconceivable, in the ordinary course of prudent conduct, that a sum so substantial could be remitted over a period of six years without the production of a single receipt or acknowledgment. Such uncorroborated assertion, unsupported by documentary evidence, rings hollow and fails to discharge the burden cast upon the Defendant No.4.”
The Court further noted that even Smt. Bela Bose, when examined as a witness by the Appellant, did not support his case and was declared hostile.
Applying the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, the Court held:
“A purchaser is expected to verify the title of the purported vendor before making payment of such a substantial amount. Equally, he is also not expected to remit the entire sale consideration without obtaining any formal receipt or acknowledgment of such payment.”
On the issue of possession, the Court inferred that since the Appellant was the brother of the original lessee’s son-in-law, possession was likely transferred to him by Defendant No. 1. Consequently, once the tenancy was terminated, the Appellant had no independent right to remain.
Decision
The High Court upheld the findings of the District Judge (Commercial Court), Tis Hazari, stating that the Appellant’s possession was “wholly unauthorized and untenable in law.”
The Court also affirmed the award of mesne profits at ₹12,000 per month with a 10% annual enhancement, noting that:
“It is a settled principle that possession without lawful title is but a shadow of right and cannot stand against the claim of rightful owner.”
The appeal and all pending applications were dismissed.
- Case Title: Sunmeet Singh vs. Divyank Bose & Ors.
- Case No: RFA(COMM) 109/2026
