Copyright indiatimes
On September 22, 2025 Mr. Gupta, a landlord, won a case in the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The tenant had claimed that the landlord had signed an agreement to sell the property to their family, suggesting their relationship was not that of a landlord and tenant.Income Tax GuideIncome Tax Slabs FY 2025-26Income Tax Calculator 2025New Income Tax Bill 2025The Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that an agreement to sell does not equate to transfer of ownership, meaning it doesn’t hold the same weight as a sale or transfer of property. Even though the agreement to sell was signed, the registered sale deed was never executed because the tenant’s family failed to obtain government permission, leading to continuous delays in the matter.To give you a quick overview of how this case began in the high court, it stemmed from a petition filed by the landlord with the rent controller, seeking to recover arrears of rent and regain possession of his property from the tenants. The tenant did not attend the court proceedings and eventually passed away. Later, the tenant’s legal heirs joined the court proceedings.On September 22, 2025, the landlord won the case in the Himachal Pradesh High Court, proving that their relationship was indeed that of a tenant and landlord and not anything else. Consequently, the high court overturned the rent controller’s order and directed that the case be resolved quickly. The Court instructed both the landlord and tenants to appear before the Rent Controller, Shimla for further proceedings regarding the eviction case.Soayib Qureshi, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, says that the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights because it is merely a promise to transfer property at a future date and not an executed transfer of ownership. Relying on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court emphasized that ownership in immovable property can only be transferred through a registered sale deed. Qureshi says: "An unregistered agreement, even if acted upon, cannot vest title or ownership in the purchaser. Therefore, the tenant’s reliance on the agreement to sell could not alter the existing landlord-tenant relationship."According to Qureshi, "The landlord succeeded because the Court found that the tenant’s status was never altered by the alleged agreement to sell. The agreement neither covered the entire tenanted property nor culminated in a registered sale deed, meaning no ownership passed to the tenant or her legal representatives. The Court observed that no steps were taken for specific performance of the agreement, and rent continued to be paid, reaffirming the subsisting tenancy. Consequently, the landlord’s right to seek eviction remained intact, and the High Court upheld the landlord’s claim by restoring the eviction proceedings."Also read: Candidate denied job because he did not respond to govt’s call letter within 30 days, he files case and wins in High CourtSmriti Jaswal, Advocate, Accord Juris LLP, said to ET Wealth Online: "This judgment finally calls out a bias that has existed for far too long that a homemaker somehow has fewer rights. The Court has made it crystal clear: a landlady does not need a business card, a title, or a revenue model to justify reclaiming her own property. Her decision itself carries authority. If she believes the premises are needed for her family’s welfare or her husband’s progress, that is a legitimate and lawful ‘own use.’ This ruling reinforces that ownership comes with agency and dignity. A woman doesn’t need permission, validation, or justification to exercise her legal rights."Background of the legal casesMr. Gupta, the landlord, filed a Revision Petition against the order dated January 7, 2021, passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, for Case No.8-11 of 2017. This order allowed the objections raised by the tenant’s legal heirs on April 26, 2018, stating that the status of the parties had changed due to an agreement to sell at the time the Rent Petition was filed. As a result, the chances of the landlord getting an eviction order were minimal.The landlord filed the Rent Petition No.142/2 of 2015 in the Himachal Pradesh High Court, on August 5, 2015, which was officially registered on August 12, 2015. The Rent Petition was filed on the ground of unpaid rents from March 1, 2001 till the date of filing the Rent Petition, despite the landlord’s demands for payment.Also read: Man gets tax notice for depositing Rs 8 lakh in bank account, tax dept deems it as presumptive business income; he wins case in ITAT DelhiSumitra Devi (the tenant) was served notice on January 11, 2016, but she failed to show up and contest the petition. Accordingly, she was proceeded against ex-parte (without her) as per the order dated January 11, 2016.After hearing the ex-parte arguments, the Rent Controller determined that the landlord was entitled to recover a total of Rs 4 lakh (4,35,860) as arrears of rent at the rate Rs 1,650 per month, plus statutory interest @ 9% per annum from March 1, 2001 to March 14, 2012, and amended interest @ 12% per annum with effect from March 15, 2012 till passing of the eviction order, i.e. October 1, 2016. Sumitra Devi (tenant) was directed to pay/deposit the amount within 30 days w.e.f. October 1, 2016, that is the date of passing of order. If she failed to do so, she would face eviction from the rented premises.Admittedly, Sumitra Devi did not make the required payment. As a result, the Execution Petition No.15/10 of 2017 was filed by the landlord against Sumitra Devi. However, Sumitra Devi expired on July 4, 2017, leading to the Execution Petition being dismissed in default on August 23, 2018 as it remained unsatisfied.Tenant’s legal heirs says landlord executed an agreement to sellThe tenant’s legal heirs said that the landlord had executed an Agreement to Sell on January 21, 2004 with a member of their (tenant's) family for sale of half of the Bakery Building from the ground floor to top floor (which included the premises in dispute also) and half of the Bakery Building in the ground floor.The tenant’s legal heirs said that the sell transaction was for Rs 3.5 lakh, out of which, the landlord had received Rs 70,000 (Rs 50,000 on December 24, 2002 and Rs 20,000 January 21, 2004) and the balance amount of Rs 2.8 lakh was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed.Also read: Air passengers tricked into paying premium seat fees despite free options, says Consumer Commission; airline ordered to compensate The tenant’s legal heirs said since they could not obtain permission from the Government to purchase the property, the execution of the sale deed kept getting postponed multiple times. Additionally, they claimed that they are already occupying the top floor, which consists of 4 rooms, and have thus became part owners of the property. Therefore, the assertion that their parents were tenants of those 4 rooms at the top floor was unfounded. Moreover, the tenant’s legal heirs said that on January 21, 2004m the landlord had even authorized them to take possession of one room of Anand Sarup by breaking open the lock of the room. According to the tenant’s legal heirs, the landlord had committed a big fraud and cheated Sumitra Devi by filing a Rent Petition based on false claims. Thus they argued that the Execution Petition, which was filed based on an order obtained through misrepresentation and incorrect facts, is not at all maintainable. A copy of Agreement to Sell dated January 21, 2004 was also placed on record. It shows that the deadline for paying the remaining balance and registering the Sale Deed was pushed back from February 28, 2004 to June 30, 2004 and on July 19, 2004, it was further extended to October 30, 2004. This extension was signed and attested by the landlord’s son and Mr. Gupta (landlord).Also read: Wife to get central government pension under CCS rules as husband went missing for more than seven years: Chhattisgarh High Court orderHimachal Pradesh High Court said this about the agreement to saleThe Himachal Pradesh High Court said that the order for eviction had been passed with respect to the premises in question, consisting of four big rooms on top floor of Bakery Building Dhalli, which also include a kitchen and bathroom.The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that as evident from Clauses 6 and 7, of the Agreement to Sell, dated December 24, 2002, it was executed with Sumitra Devi and Asha Ram, who were parents of the present legal heirs of the tenant, regarding sale of top floor of Bakery Building, But it was cancelled and superseded by an Agreement to Sell dated January 21, 2004. The Former Agreement to Sell (December 24, 2002) was with respect to entire property of Bakery Building, whereas the latter Agreement to Sell (January 21, 2004) is with respect to half of entire portion, from top to bottom, of Bakery Building, which includes only two rooms on top floor of Bakery Building. With respect to the remaining two rooms, it was stated in this agreement that these were in possession of the mother of the original tenant, and the other two rooms were occupied by Asha Ram and Daulat Ram, who were to vacate them on or before February 29, 2004. The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “Therefore, the Rent Controller has arrived at a wrong conclusion that entire premises in reference were subject matter of the Agreement to Sell.”Also read: Higher pension due on July 1 due to annual increment to be allowed to employee retiring on June 30 in this condition: Punjab & Haryana High CourtThe Himachal Pradesh High Court said that even otherwise, as provided in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an Agreement to Sell does not create any title in favour of the purchaser as it is only an Agreement to Sell but not sale or transfer of property subject matter of the Agreement to Sell. Therefore, the tenant's legal heir, to acquire title on the subject matter of the Agreement to Sell has to ensure execution of the Sale Deed.The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that it is also apparent from the record that the tenant’s son could not obtain permission to purchase the property and, resultantly, the Agreement to Sell was extended several times.The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that what happened to the said agreement or the application submitted by the tenant’s son seeking permission to purchase the property has not been placed on record. There is nothing on record that the tenant’s son or his successor-in-interest ever took any step, including filing a suit for specific performance, in furtherance to Agreement to Sell.The tenant’s son had also expired during the pendency of the Execution Petition and was substituted by his wife Kamlesh.It has come on record that Kamlesh had started a Civil Suit, titled Kamlesh v. Prem Mohii Gupta, on November 28, 2018, which is pending in Court No.4, Shimla, wherein Kamlesh has sought declaration against the eviction order, with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the landlord Mr. Gupta (defendant in the Civil Suit) from evicting Kamlesh (plaintiff) following the eviction order of October 1, 2016.Also read: Possession delay: MahaREAT asked homebuyer to pay Rs 13 lakh interest to builder despite 2.5 years delay in delivery of Rs 1.65 crore apartmentThe Himachal Pradesh High Court said that it has been wrongly concluded by the Rent Controller that the subject matter of Agreement to Sell dated January 21, 2004 is the same as that in the Rent Petition. The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that the Rent Petition has been filed for eviction from the entire top floor of the Bakery Building, whereas Agreement to Sell refers only to two rooms thereof with a specific rider that physical possession of remaining two rooms shall be given to the landlord, which were in possession of Sumitra Devi, which indicates that the two rooms were in exclusive possession of Sumitra Devi, which were not part of the Agreement to Sell with the tenant’s son and, therefore, it has not been proved that Agreement to Sell was pertaining to the entire premises in reference. The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that there is another aspect of the case. The Agreement to Sell is alleged to have been executed on January 21, 2004. From pleadings, it appears that some amount was paid to the landlord, but for grant of permission by the Government, the sale deed could not be executed and the balance amount of Rs 2.8 lakh payable on the execution of the sale deed remained unpaid.The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that the Rent Petition was preferred by the landlord in 2015. The tenant’s son did not contest the petition nor any Agreement to Sell dated December 24, 2002 has been proved on record, but execution thereof has been elucidated from the documents placed on record, including Agreement to Sell dated January 21, 2004. In the absence of any material on record, it is not possible to adjudicate the claim on the basis of alleged agreement dated December 24, 2002.The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that the agreement dated January 21, 2004 is an Agreement to Sell/Lease. It is not an Agreement to Sell, rather it has been categorically stated in it that the seller/executor was desirous of selling/leasing and the purchaser had agreed to purchase/take on lease hall of the Bakery Building.Also read: Rs 1.5 crore tax refund withheld by Income Tax Dept due to mismatch between ITR and Form 26AS; taxpayer files case, wins in High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “It appears from aforesaid that the agreement was not exclusively an Agreement to Sell but it was having alternative either to sell out or lease out the property. Therefore, it cannot be said that at the time of execution of Agreement dated January 21, 2004, relation between the landlord and tenant came to an end as the agreement, in alternative, was for lease also. In view of above, by allowing the Objection Petition filed by the tenant’s son, Rent Controller has committed an error of fact as well in law.”Himachal Pradesh High Court: The agreement to sale did not state that tenancy had come to an endThe Himachal Pradesh High Court said that in the agreement, it is nowhere stated that tenancy had come to an end. Had it been an Agreement to Sell only, then there was a possibility of drawing inference that tenancy came to an end at the time of execution of agreement. As the agreement was in alternative to sell or lease out, therefore, it has to be construed, given the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially for the nature of the agreement, that on execution of the agreement to sell/ lease, the tenancy would not come to an end. The agreement does not include the entire tenanted premises and, therefore, the Rent Controller has committed a mistake by allowing the objections. The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that the tenant’s son was duly served but did not opt to contest the petition. It has come on record that they had filed a Civil Suit which was stated to be pending adjudication. The present status of the Civil Suit has not been disclosed.Also read: Bank withholds retired employee’s gratuity for someone else’s loan default; she wins in Odisha High CourtThe Himachal Pradesh High Court said that there is nothing on record that Sumitra Devi or Shyam Lal for specific performance of the agreement have ever filed any suit or taken any other action. Rather on receiving the Rent Petition notice, Sumitra Devi did not contest it. Thus, in these circumstances, it would be wrong to construe that, for execution of agreement, relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end, Instead, Sumitra Devi did not dispute the fact by choosing not to contest the Rent Petition. There is nothing on record to depict that even Shyam Lal or his wife Kamlesh have filed suit for specific performance.Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “In the aforesaid given facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment in Arjunlal Bhatt’s case supra is not applicable. With the aforesaid discussion, impugned Order dated January 7, 2021 is set aside and Objection Petition is directed to be restored to its original status with original number before the concerned Rent Controller Shimla.”The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that the landlord is directed to ensure presence before the Rent Controller on October 13, 2025 and to take appropriate steps for service of Kamlesh in the Execution Petition. Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “Needless to say, if any objection is taken by Kamlesh on the basis of a Civil Suit preferred by her, then such objection shall be decided by the Executing Court in accordance with law. In case, Kamlesh does not opt to contest the Execution Petition or does not raise any objection on the basis of Civil Suit stated to have been preferred by her, the Executing Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.”Himachal Pradesh High Court judgement: “The Execution Petition shall be decided by the Executing Court as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 31.12.2025. The Revision Petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending application, any, also stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Rent Controller forthwith.”
