Tenant Cannot Deny New Landlord’s Title—Attornment Not Required When Ownership Transfers By Law: Delhi High Court

“Under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Relationship of Landlord and Tenant Flows Automatically Upon Lawful Transfer—Tenant Cannot Evade Eviction by Denying Title”, -  In a clear and emphatic ruling on August 26, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of a long-standing shop occupant who had challenged the right of a new landlord to evict him. The Court declared that once a property is lawfully transferred, the transferee becomes the landlord by operation of law, and a tenant’s attornment is not a legal precondition for this relationship to crystallise.

The Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the tenant’s resistance based on non-attornment and alleged low rent was “legally flawed and factually unreliable”. The Court stated, “Attornment by the lessee is not necessary for the transfer of the property leased out to him. The transferee becomes the landlord ipso jure.”

The case involved a commercial tenancy of a shop in Shastri Nagar, New Delhi, where the defendant, Charanjit Singh Makkar, had been occupying the property since 1994. The property was sold by the previous owner, Shiv Shankar Gupta, to Phalvinder Arora by a registered sale deed dated 14.10.2019. The sale deed clearly mentioned the presence of the tenant. Upon purchase, the new owner issued a notice to the tenant on 10.12.2019 informing him of the transfer. The tenant, however, replied denying any tenancy under the new owner and claimed continued tenancy under the former landlord.

The Court found this to be a deliberate obstruction. “The Appellant cannot challenge the title of the Respondent as the owner of the subject property,” observed the Bench. Citing Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court explained that the rights of the lessor automatically vest in the transferee unless a contract to the contrary exists. “The Respondent has stepped into the shoes of the previous owner, and the Appellant became a tenant under the Respondent by operation of law.”

Rejecting the claim that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, the Court found that not only had the sale deed lawfully vested title in the respondent, but the tenant had also responded to the notice acknowledging the transaction, even if begrudgingly. “The attornment is not the basis of ownership—it is merely a notice to inform the lessee of a fact that the law already recognises.”

The tenant had also raised a defence that the rent was below ₹3,500/month, thus attracting protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Court, however, noted the shifting and inconsistent stands taken by the tenant. Initially, the tenant claimed rent was ₹2,143/month. Later, under cross-examination, he admitted the rent had increased annually and was closer to ₹3,500/month by 2019. Furthermore, he failed to produce any rent receipts or income tax returns to substantiate his version. “The Appellant is not a reliable witness,” declared the Court. “His stand has changed with the passage of time.”

The Court also took note of evidence presented by the landlord showing that properties in the same locality were commanding a rent of over ₹30,000/month. The Court found that the landlord had sufficiently discharged the burden of proof, and that the tenant had failed to rebut the same.

Addressing the tenant’s claim that the suit was wrongly treated as a commercial dispute, the Court clarified that tenancy of a commercial property falls squarely within the scope of a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act. “The immovable property is undisputedly attached to a commercial shop,” the Court concluded.

The Court ultimately upheld the trial court’s decree granting possession to the landlord, along with arrears of rent amounting to ₹2,52,000 and mesne profits at ₹15,000/month. While noting a minor procedural lapse in the grouping of issues by the trial court, the Bench held that such an error did not vitiate the merits of the decree.

Concluding the judgment, the Court delivered a caution to tenants attempting to thwart legitimate property rights through frivolous defences: “The inevitable consequence of transfer of a leased-out property by the landlord is that the transferee becomes the landlord in law. The tenant cannot create technical hurdles to frustrate this transfer.”

Date of Decision: 26 August 2025