Tenant Remains a Tenant—Cannot Claim Ownership or Deny Eviction After Lease Ends: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Over Shop Possession

“Registered Lease Has Legal Sanctity—Oral Claims of Extension or Investment Cannot Defeat Written Agreement” –  In a well-reasoned judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the legal sanctity of written lease agreements and upheld the concurrent findings of two lower courts that ordered the eviction of a tenant and awarded damages for unauthorized occupation. The Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, finding no substantial question of law, and emphasized that oral assurances or alleged improvements made by the tenant could not override a registered lease deed or justify continued occupation after the lease expired.
Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao observed:
“It is well settled that a tenant is always a tenant. He cannot acquire any title against a true owner, nor can he dictate terms to the landlord or subsequent purchasers.”

The dispute arose from a registered lease dated January 23, 2003, entered between the appellant-tenant and the original owner Smt. Bondada Sesharatnam. The lease was for six years, expiring on October 31, 2008. Upon her death in 2005, the property passed to her sons—the plaintiffs—by way of a registered gift settlement deed. After the expiry of the lease, the plaintiffs issued a quit notice on September 13, 2008, but the tenant refused to vacate, prompting a suit for possession and damages.
The trial court decreed the suit, awarding possession and damages of ₹500 per day for unauthorized occupation post-lease. The first appellate court upheld the decree. In the second appeal, the tenant claimed oral assurances, investment of lakhs into building construction, and alleged refusal by landlords to accept rent.

The High Court found that the appellant admitted to the landlord-tenant relationship, to the existence of the registered lease, and to its expiry on 31-10-2008. His defence was based on alleged oral promises by the original owner and her sons to let him stay rent-free for 12 more years in lieu of construction of additional floors, and that he had spent over ₹25 lakhs improving the premises.
However, the Court held: “No credible documentary evidence was produced by the appellant to support his claims of construction expenses, oral extensions, or alleged bank loan usage. Oral assertions cannot override the express terms of a registered lease deed.”
Further, the appellant had not produced any written agreement extending the tenancy, nor any proof that the landlord had waived rent obligations or accepted continued occupation post-lease.

Emphasizing the limitations of second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the Court stated: “Concurrent findings based on oral and documentary evidence are not open to interference unless a substantial question of law arises. Mere dissatisfaction with outcomes does not meet the threshold.”
The Court cited Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi and Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, reiterating that appellate courts cannot re-examine pure questions of fact or reassess evidence.

Effect of Alienation During Pendency and Addition of Purchasers
During the pendency of the original suit, the plaintiffs had sold the property to third parties, who later became respondents 7 to 10 in the second appeal. The Court ruled that such pendente lite purchasers were validly added, holding: “Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, rights of transferees during litigation are protected. They step into the shoes of the original owner and are entitled to possession.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the appellant to vacate and hand over possession to the new purchasers within three months, failing which they would be entitled to take lawful steps for eviction.

Upholding the eviction and damages awarded, the High Court concluded:
“This second appeal is devoid of merits. The appellant, having overstayed the lease and failed to substantiate any legal or equitable claim, cannot frustrate lawful ownership through frivolous litigation.”
The judgment not only reinforces the inviolability of registered leases but also affirms that tenants cannot resist eviction through unsubstantiated narratives of oral extensions or investment-based equities.

Date of Decision: April 22, 2025