Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court

Once Ownership Is Transferred, Tenant Cannot Choose Whom to Pay Rent—Non-Payment to New Landlord Justifies Eviction - In a decisive ruling Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal of Binay Kumar Dokania, upholding his eviction from a commercial property in Jamtara. The tenant, who had occupied the premises for over a decade, refused to vacate after the property was sold, claiming he “did not recognize the new landlord.” The Court made it clear that "once a property is transferred, a tenant has no right to dispute the new owner’s title and must comply with the terms of tenancy, including payment of rent to the rightful landlord."

Rejecting the tenant’s arguments, the Court observed, “A tenant cannot manufacture ownership disputes to evade eviction. The law does not permit a tenant to unilaterally decide whom they wish to recognize as the landlord when legal ownership has changed hands.”

"A Lease Ends, But the Tenant Refuses to Leave—Can a Property Sale Be Challenged by a Tenant?"
The dispute arose after the plaintiff, Decorum Nirman Limited, purchased the leased property from its original owner, Bhagwati Prasad Parsuramka, through a registered sale deed on July 17, 2008. The tenant, Binay Kumar Dokania, had entered into a lease agreement in 1996 for 15 years, which expired on October 31, 2011.

Despite being served with notices and being informed of the sale, he refused to vacate, arguing that he had continued to pay rent to the original owner. The new landlord initiated eviction proceedings under Title Eviction Suit No. 03/2012, which culminated in an order for his removal. His first appeal was dismissed in 2018, prompting this second appeal before the High Court.

The High Court ruled that "when a tenant has been notified of the sale, he cannot evade legal obligations by claiming he was unaware or unwilling to recognize the new landlord. Property ownership is a matter of law, not personal preference."

"Transfer of Property Does Not Require Tenant’s Consent—Attornment Is Not Necessary for Eviction"
The tenant argued that the sale of the property was invalid in his eyes because he had never consented to it or attorned to the new landlord. The Court rejected this claim outright, relying on Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which states that:

"If a lessor transfers the property leased, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary for the transfer to take effect."

The Court referred to Gopi v. Ballabh Vyas (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1279), where the Supreme Court ruled that “a tenant cannot refuse to acknowledge the rights of a legally recognized transferee. Ownership disputes between the old and new landlord do not concern the tenant, whose duty is only to pay rent and comply with tenancy terms.”

"A Tenant Cannot Pay Rent to the Wrong Person and Claim Protection Under Law"

The tenant attempted to justify his non-payment of rent to the new owner, claiming that he continued paying the original landlord through money orders. The Court found that:

•    The original owner had officially informed him of the sale and instructed him to pay rent to Decorum Nirman Limited.
•    He had admitted in court that he knew about the sale as early as 2008 but chose not to comply.
•    Despite knowing that the property had been sold, he defaulted on rent payments from November 2010 onwards.
The Court rejected the tenant’s defense, stating, “A tenant cannot selectively decide whom to pay rent to. Once notified of a change in ownership, he is legally bound to pay rent to the rightful landlord. His failure to do so constitutes willful default and justifies eviction.”

"Lease Expired—No Automatic Right to Renewal Without a Written Agreement"

The tenant further claimed that he had an “implied right of renewal” and that the original landlord had verbally assured him that he would be given priority to purchase the property if sold. The High Court dismissed this claim, ruling that:

“Tenancy rights do not continue indefinitely unless there is an explicit renewal clause in the agreement. A verbal assurance is not enforceable in law. Once a lease expires, continued occupation without the landlord’s consent is illegal.”

The Court relied on Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala (2018 SC 481), which held that “an expired lease does not grant a tenant perpetual rights over the property. The burden is on the tenant to prove renewal rights through valid contractual documents.”

"Procedural Objections Over Sale Deed Rejected—Technical Errors Cannot Override Substantive Rights"

The tenant also challenged the admissibility of the sale deed, arguing that it was introduced late in the trial, depriving him of the opportunity to challenge it. The Court acknowledged that the sale deed should have been submitted earlier but ruled that this technical lapse did not affect the core issues in the case.

“Even if the sale deed had been improperly introduced, the tenant’s own admissions confirm that he was aware of the sale. The defense of ignorance cannot be accepted when the facts show otherwise.”

The Court emphasized that procedural errors cannot be used to delay justice, stating, "Courts must balance technicalities with substantive rights. A minor procedural lapse does not invalidate a claim when the evidence overwhelmingly favors the rightful owner."

Conclusion: "Tenant Has No Right to Challenge Ownership to Avoid Eviction—Court Orders Immediate Vacating of Premises"

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the eviction order and ruled that the tenant must vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent at ₹2,000 per month until eviction is completed. The Court concluded: "A tenant cannot hold a property hostage by refusing to acknowledge the rightful landlord. The transfer of ownership is a legal reality, and a tenant’s refusal to accept it does not change the facts. The appeal is dismissed, and the eviction order stands."

The judgment reinforces that tenants must abide by the law and cannot challenge property sales as an excuse to remain in possession beyond the lease term. The ruling ensures that rightful property owners can reclaim their premises without undue delays caused by tenants creating unnecessary legal hurdles.

Date of Decision: 11.03.2025