How Could a Woman Living in the House Since 2004 Be Unaware Her Husband Sold It?” — P&H High Court Declares Sale Deed a Sham to Evict Tenant

“Eviction Cannot Be Engineered Through Family Transfers Dressed as Sale”— In a compelling decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismantled the foundation of an eviction order obtained through what it declared to be a "sham transaction cloaked as a genuine sale deed", executed solely to oust a long-standing tenant. The Court, presided by Justice Virinder Aggarwal, held that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had both “mechanically accepted the sale” without examining the collusive nature of the transaction.

The petitioner-tenant, a legal heir of the original lessee Kimti Lal Kapoor, was ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority based on a claim of bona fide need by the purchaser Gagandeep. However, the High Court found that the entire chain of ownership, particularly the 2017 sale by Veer Chand Bhatia (an NRI) to Gagandeep, was engineered as a legal façade to get around procedural hurdles and secure a fresh ground of eviction.

Justice Aggarwal pulled no punches in his criticism of the so-called buyer: “How can a woman who’s been residing in the same house since 2004 be completely unaware that her husband had sold the property in 2005 to a relative, and that it is being re-transferred in her name in 2017?”

The Court refused to accept her professed ignorance, calling it “not just implausible but consciously evasive.”

The backstory is steeped in strategic litigation. Originally, Veer Chand Bhatia, an NRI relative of the current owner’s husband, had filed petitions for eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which grants special rights to NRIs. Those petitions were withdrawn after leave to defend was granted. Shortly thereafter, Gagandeep—wife of Vijay Bhatia and niece-in-law of Veer Chand—appeared as the new owner, citing a bona fide need to open a boutique and hosiery business for her son.

The High Court saw through the timing and sequence:

“It is evident that the withdrawal of earlier petitions was strategic. A new owner was created within the family, and new grounds of bona fide requirement were raised to start afresh. The sale deed is nothing but a legal camouflage.”

The Court also questioned the strangely structured sale consideration. While Gagandeep claimed the property was purchased in 2017, the cheque through which payment was allegedly made was dated over a year prior. The judge asked pointedly:

“If the petitioner had no knowledge of the impending sale until 5–6 months before the transaction, how did she issue payment a year in advance?”

Such inconsistencies led the Court to the firm conclusion that the sale was a paper transaction devised to get around procedural hurdles faced by Veer Chand.

Another fatal flaw in the eviction order was the authorities’ unquestioned acceptance of the claim that the tenants had not occupied the premises for over four months. The High Court termed this a “lazy and superficial finding”, made “without any credible evidence”. In truth, the tenants had submitted documents and rent receipts that clearly showed continued possession and payment.

Further, the landlord’s version was riddled with contradictions. Gagandeep denied knowledge of even basic facts, including whether her husband’s family had sold the property in 2005 to Veer Chand. This led the Court to state:

“It is a matter of record that the petitioner resided on the first floor of the property since 2004. Her denial of any knowledge of a 2005 sale executed by her husband to his own relative is not believable by any standard of common sense.”

The Court stressed that eviction laws, particularly under the Rent Act, are not meant to become tools for manipulation through intra-family transactions that merely serve to rotate ownership on paper without any genuine change in title or possession.

In conclusion, Justice Aggarwal struck down both the Rent Controller’s and the Appellate Authority’s orders as “perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.” He held that:

“The sale deed dated 18.12.2017 was clearly executed with the sole purpose of filing fresh ejectment petitions under the guise of bona fide requirement. The authorities failed to apply judicial scrutiny and accepted the transaction at face value.”

The revision petitions were accordingly allowed, and the orders of eviction were set aside, marking a decisive victory for the tenants.

This ruling makes clear that the Courts will not be passive observers when procedural tools are misused to subvert tenant protections, especially by way of collusive transactions masked as legitimate transfers. It reaffirms that justice is not about form—it is about substance.

Date of Decision: 11.09.2025