The Delhi High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by Sanjay Dubey and his father Ramesh Chandra Dubey, affirming a trial court's decision that treated them as tenants of a flat in East Delhi and not prospective purchasers. The Court also upheld the dismissal of Sanjay Dubey's suit seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell the property.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that the appellants could not claim ownership rights on the basis of unsigned and unregistered agreements to sell, particularly when the record showed that they had entered and continued to occupy the property as tenants.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned Flat No. 126, Maitri Apartments, Patparganj, Delhi. Sanjay Dubey claimed that Nandlal had agreed to sell the property to him in 2007 for ₹19.5 lakh. According to him, possession was handed over while the parties waited for the flat to be converted into freehold property and for a formal sale deed to be executed. He also alleged that he paid substantial amounts towards the proposed sale consideration over the years.
Nandlal, however, denied any concluded agreement to sell. He maintained that the flat had been rented to Ramesh Chandra Dubey from June 2007 at a monthly rent of ₹9,000 and that the Dubey family continued in possession even after the tenancy ended. He subsequently filed a suit seeking possession and recovery of rent and occupation charges.
The trial court decreed Nandlal's possession suit and dismissed Sanjay Dubey's specific performance suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relying on admissions found in the pleadings and other records.
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined the pleadings, documents and previous statements made by the parties. It noted that the appellants themselves admitted paying ₹9,000 per month from the time they entered the property in 2007. The Court found this consistent with a landlord-tenant relationship.
Justice Krishna observed that even the appellants' own version showed that the alleged agreements to sell prepared in September and October 2008 were never signed by Nandlal.
The Court noted that, according to Sanjay Dubey's case, Nandlal refused to sign the agreement prepared on stamp paper and similarly did not sign the document later prepared on plain paper. Without the owner's signature, there could be no concluded agreement to sell.
The judgment also referred to earlier proceedings before the High Court in which Sanjay Dubey had produced proof of paying rent and had acknowledged residing in the property as a tenant paying ₹9,000 per month.
“The learned District Judge thus rightly concluded on the basis of the pleadings, as well as their admissions made in another suit before this Court, that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,” the bench observed.
Unsigned Agreements Could Not Create Ownership Rights
The Court further held that even if negotiations for sale had taken place, they did not create ownership rights in favour of the appellants.
Justice Krishna observed that there was no signed or registered agreement to sell on record. The Court emphasized that a person who enters a property as a tenant cannot later claim ownership merely on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell that never matured into a legally enforceable contract.
The bench also noted that protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was unavailable because there was no registered agreement to sell.
Decision
Finding no error in the trial court's approach, the Delhi High Court upheld the decree granting possession of the flat to Nandlal and affirmed the dismissal of Sanjay Dubey's suit for specific performance.
“The suit for specific performance filed by Mr. Sanjay Dubey has, therefore, been rightly dismissed,” the Court held.
Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Sanjay Dubey & Anr. v. Nandlal
Case Number: RFA 482/2023 and RFA 11/2024
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: 10 June 2026
