Tenant's Claim That Possession Was Never Delivered Under a Rent Deed Raises a Triable Issue — Allahabad HC

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Overview

The Allahabad High Court has held that a tenant’s plea that possession was never handed over under an executed rent deed — and that no landlord-tenant relationship therefore came into existence — raises a disputed question of fact that cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Declining to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court left the question of the existence of the tenancy open for the Rent Authority to decide on evidence.

Case: Hem Chand v. M/s Padmawati Pvt Ltd (Matters Under Article 227 No. 9304 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738
Bench: Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Date: 8 September 2026

Facts

The respondent-landlord instituted a rent case before the Rent Authority/A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Baghpat, seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from commercial premises let out under a rent deed dated 24 December 2020 at a monthly rent of Rs. 75,000. The landlord’s case was that three months’ advance rent was paid at the inception of the tenancy but no rent was paid thereafter, and that the tenancy was terminated by a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The tenant disputed that any landlord-tenant relationship had ever come into existence. His case was that although the rent deed dated 24 December 2020 was executed, the transaction was never acted upon and possession of the premises was never delivered to him. He also relied on an application he had filed before the Registrar seeking cancellation of the rent deed on the ground that it had not been acted upon. On this basis, he applied under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the rent case at the threshold.

The Rent Authority rejected the application by order dated 22 May 2025. The tenant’s revision against that order was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat, by order dated 2 May 2026. The tenant then challenged both orders before the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

What the Court Held

1. Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC tests disclosure of a cause of action, not its truth or the strength of the defence. The Court reiterated that while considering an objection under Order VII Rule 11(a), it must read the plaint or application as a whole and determine whether the averments, taken at face value, disclose the foundational facts constituting a cause of action. It observed: “The enquiry is directed to the existence of a cause of action as disclosed from the pleadings and not to the ultimate merits or proof of the claim.” At that stage, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial, test the truth of the averments, or adjudicate disputed questions of fact requiring evidence.

2. The tenant’s plea of non-delivery of possession is a disputed question of fact, not a pleading defect. The Court held that the landlord had specifically pleaded execution of the rent deed, the premises let out, the agreed rent, payment of advance rent, subsequent default, and termination by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — averments which, taken at face value, disclosed the factual foundation for the rent proceedings. The tenant’s objection did not point to any deficiency in that pleading; it disputed the factual and legal effect of the transaction. The Court held: “The plea of non-delivery of possession raised by the petitioner falls in the latter category. If established, the plea may have a bearing upon the respondent’s entitlement to succeed in the rent proceedings. Its determination, however, would necessarily involve an examination of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the rent deed, the conduct of the parties and such other material as may properly be brought on record. The possibility that the defence may ultimately succeed cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. when the respondent’s case, as pleaded, discloses the factual basis of the relief claimed.”

3. The application before the Registrar for cancellation of the rent deed does not settle the question at the threshold. The Court held that the mere filing of such an application did not, by itself, conclude whether the rent deed was acted upon or whether possession was delivered; its evidentiary value was a matter for the Rent Authority to examine along with the other material on record.

4. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is narrow and does not extend to re-appreciating a possible alternative view. The Court held that it was “not called upon to substitute its own view merely because another view may be possible on the material before the court or authority below,” and that interference under Article 227 “is warranted where the order under challenge discloses a patent jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, perversity or failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court or authority.” No such infirmity was found in the orders of the Rent Authority or the revisional court.

5. Petition disposed of; all pleas left open to the Rent Authority. The Court clarified that it had not decided whether a tenancy came into existence, the legal effect of the rent deed, or the delivery or non-delivery of possession — these questions remained open for the Rent Authority to decide on the material and evidence brought before it. The Rent Authority was directed to proceed expeditiously and, where possible, decide the matter within the period contemplated under Section 33(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

Precedents Relied On

Neeraj Maheshwari v. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj (Allahabad High Court, decided 2 September 2026) — a recent decision of the same Court reiterating that an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is confined to whether the pleaded averments, taken at face value, disclose a cause of action, and cannot be converted into an adjudication of the defence.
Within Neeraj Maheshwari, the Court had in turn applied the following Supreme Court authority on the scope of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC:
- T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467.
- Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557.
- Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (Dead) Through Legal Representatives, (2020) 7 SCC 366.

Takeaway

The decision draws a clear line for Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC applications in landlord-tenant matters: once the plaintiff’s pleadings disclose the transaction on which the claim rests, a defendant’s assertion that the transaction was never acted upon — even a serious one, such as a claim that possession under a registered rent deed was never delivered — is a matter for trial, not for threshold rejection. The Court also declined to expand Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction into a re-appreciation of that factual dispute, confining it to jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity. The underlying question of whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists remains pending before the Rent Authority, Baghpat, and this summary expresses no view on the correctness of either party’s version of events.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.