Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court

"In order to succeed in getting a Decree of Possession, it is not a prerequisite that there must necessarily be a relationship of landlord and tenant. Even if the Defendant is in occupation of the suit property in any capacity, the possession is liable to be restored to the Plaintiff, who is admittedly the owner of the same." Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated September 29, 2026, held that a decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can be passed based on judicial admissions regarding the defendant's occupation of the suit property, even where the existence of a formal landlord-tenant relationship remains contested.

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that once the owner's title is admitted and the defendant’s physical occupation of the premises is evidenced by their own conduct, the court is not precluded from ordering the restoration of possession.

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for possession against the appellant (defendant) regarding a basement property in Ashok Vihar. While the parties had negotiated for a lease, no registered lease deed was ever executed due to the failure to reach a final agreement and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant entered the premises in February 2020, installed fittings, and later defaulted on rent, while the defendant argued that possession was never formally handed over and that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.

The primary question before the court was whether a decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was maintainable in the absence of a registered lease deed or a formally admitted landlord-tenant relationship. The court also examined whether the suit for possession was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC due to the pendency of a separate suit for the recovery of rent between the same parties.

The court observed that the defendant’s own pleadings in the written statement contradicted his claim of non-possession. It was noted that the defendant had admitted to entering the property, conducting extensive renovation and fitment work, and even paying a security deposit. The bench emphasized that the defendant’s attempt to claim he was not in "possession" because the keys were held by a watchman was a legal artifice that could not negate the reality of his occupation.

Court Clarifies Concept Of Possession

The court held that even if the defendant were to be characterized as a licensee rather than a lessee, the owner’s right to seek eviction upon the termination of such an arrangement is absolute. The bench noted that the physical act of carrying out renovations and fitments on the suit property was sufficient to establish that the defendant exercised control and dominion over the premises.

"The defendant cannot claim that he did not have the possession of the suit property. In fact, from the entire detailed Written Statement, it is admitted that the defendant was in possession and in fact, had even carried out the renovations."

No Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC

Addressing the appellant's contention that the suit was barred, the court reaffirmed that a suit for possession and a suit for recovery of arrears of rent constitute distinct causes of action. Consequently, the filing of the earlier suit for rent did not preclude the landlord from subsequently seeking the recovery of the property itself.

Application Of Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons, the court reiterated that under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease can be created by oral agreement accompanied by the delivery of possession. Even in the absence of a registered instrument, the court is empowered to look into the conduct of the parties to discern the jural relationship.

"Where both sides admit that the owner put the person into possession and that rent was being paid or had been agreed, the possession can only be that of a lessee, and nothing else."

The court concluded that the appellant's defense regarding the lack of a registered lease only pertained to the nature of the tenancy or liability for rent, which remained open for adjudication in the pending suit. However, as the ownership of the respondent was undisputed and the appellant’s occupation was established by his own admissions, the decree of possession was correctly passed by the trial court. The appeal was subsequently dismissed.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2026