Order 12 Rule 6 CPC | Landlord Divesting Ownership Via Pre-Suit Sale Deed Loses Locus Standi Under Section 109 TP Act; Summary Eviction Decree Impermissible: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 12, 2026, held that an erstwhile landlord who absolutely alienates tenanted property through a registered sale deed prior to filing a suit ceases to possess any subsisting locus standi to seek recovery of possession or subsequent rent. Setting aside concurrent decrees passed on admissions, a single judge bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the rights of the lessor pass entirely to the transferee, rendering a summary decree for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC impermissible without adjudicating the legal effect of such pre-suit alienation.

The deceased plaintiff, Smt. Rani (represented through legal heirs), inducted the appellant as a tenant in the suit premises for eleven months vide a rent agreement dated September 19, 2022, at Rs. 9,000 per month. Although the tenancy expired and a termination notice was served in July 2023, the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed transferring the property to third-party purchasers on September 12, 2023. Suppressing this registered conveyance, the plaintiff subsequently instituted a civil suit in January 2024 for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits, wherein the trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on purported admissions.

The primary question before the court was whether an erstwhile owner retains subsisting locus standi and entitlement to recover possession and rent after executing an absolute pre-suit registered sale deed in favour of third parties. The court was also called upon to determine whether such triable issues concerning alienation could be determined summarily under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC while rejecting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

Pre-Suit Transfer Of Ownership Divests Landlord Of Eviction Rights

The High Court observed that a sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, entails a complete transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised. Upon execution of an absolute conveyance, all bundle of rights constituting ownership pass unconditionally to the purchaser.

Transferee Steps Into Lessor's Shoes Under Section 109 TP Act

Examining the statutory framework governing tenanted premises, the bench emphasized that Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, specifically vests all rights of the lessor in the transferee. The subsequent purchaser steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner, and in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the transferor ceases to retain any authority to enforce leasehold covenants.

The bench scrutinized the registered sale deed dated September 12, 2023, noting that the vendor transferred all rights, titles, and interests absolutely and delivered constructive vacant possession to the purchasers.

The court noted that no right to either recover possession or to receive rent accruing after the date of sale was reserved in favour of the plaintiff.

Locus Standi Constitutes A Complex Incident Of Ownership

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Haradeb Banerjee, the bench reiterated that ownership denotes a complex set of rights in rem, including the right to possess, enjoy, and alienate. Once an owner divests herself of all interest in the property, the legal consequences of such alienation cannot be ignored or treated as inconsequential.

The court observed that the plaintiff was under an affirmative obligation to disclose the execution of the sale deed, as it directly impacted her maintainability of the action.

The bench stressed that suppression of a pre-suit registered conveyance affects the very foundation of an eviction suit, making locus standi a foundational issue rather than a peripheral dispute.

"The effect of the pre-suit transfer upon the Plaintiff’s locus standi constituted a material issue, which could not have been determined summarily under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC."

Rejection Of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Application Was Erroneous

The High Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in rejecting the appellant's application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to bring the registered sale deed on record. The bench noted that the registered instrument and correspondence showing subsequent purchasers asserting ownership and demanding rent went to the root of the suit.

The bench remarked that whether the plaintiff lost her right to seek possession and rent after executing the registered sale deed was a substantive triable issue requiring trial and evidence.

The court found that the summary procedure under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC could not have been invoked where the tenant challenged the continuing status of the plaintiff as landlady and raised substantial questions concerning pre-suit alienation.

Summary Judgment Inapplicable Amid Triable Issues

The High Court reiterated that a decree on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC requires unequivocal, unambiguous, and clear admissions. Where material questions regarding locus standi, validity of tenancy termination, and subsequent ownership emerge, courts cannot proceed to decree eviction summarily without formal adjudication.

The bench clarified that while the plaintiff ceased to be entitled to possession or subsequent rent after executing the sale deed, the trial court must independently examine whether she held any entitlement to recover arrears of rent or mesne profits that accrued prior to the date of sale.

Setting aside the concurrent decrees, the High Court allowed the regular second appeal, restored the original suit to its file, and remanded the matter to the trial court for adjudication in accordance with law.

The Delhi High Court established that a landlord who alienates tenanted property through an absolute registered sale deed prior to filing a suit loses the locus standi to seek eviction or post-sale rent under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court affirmed that such jurisdictional defects and triable issues preclude summary disposal under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, mandating a full trial on merits.

Date of Decision: October 12, 2026