Citation: Ramesh v. Smt. Geeta, RSA 69/2019, Delhi High Court (Justice Neena Bansal Krishna), decided on 06.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:8803
A tenant who clearly and unequivocally denies the landlord-tenant relationship and claims title in himself forfeits his tenancy, and cannot then claim the Rent Control Act’s protection against eviction, since a person cannot both accept and deny the same relationship. A document that records only a loan with the original title papers as security is not a sale deed or agreement to sell, and does not give the lender ownership or the right to keep possession. A second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot be used to reappreciate evidence.
The Delhi High Court has held that a person who denies being a tenant and claims to be the owner loses his tenant status, so he cannot then claim the protection that the Delhi Rent Control Act gives tenants. Geeta was allotted an MCD flat in Nand Nagri, Delhi, in 2003. She said that she let it to Ramesh at Rs 500 a month after taking Rs 1 lakh from him as an interest-free security deposit, and that he held the original allotment papers. He paid rent only until June 2004. When he did not vacate after a legal notice in 2013, she sued for possession. Ramesh denied being a tenant and claimed he had bought the flat under a 2003 “Ikrarnama”, saying he had paid Rs 1 lakh and received possession, and that the flat was to be hers again only if she repaid the amount within three years. He also argued that the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The trial court called the transaction an illegal sale and refused possession. The first appellate court reversed this, holding that the document was only a loan with the original papers as security, and ordered possession on payment of Rs 1 lakh to Ramesh. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed Ramesh’s second appeal. She held that the Ikrarnama was neither a sale deed nor an agreement to sell. It recorded only the loan and the handing over of the original papers as security, with no transfer of possession or ownership. His claim about an oral agreement to sell after three years was unproved, and no sale document was ever executed. Since he claimed an independent title and denied the landlord-tenant relationship, he renounced his tenancy under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, which also applies on principle where that Act does not directly apply, and could not seek the protection of the Rent Control Act. She rejected his plea that the transaction was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, because Geeta was not enforcing the Ikrarnama and was only seeking possession based on her own allotment. The court said the appeal raised no substantial question of law, as it only challenged the evidence, which cannot be reopened in a second appeal.