A Tenant Said the Owner's Husband Promised It the Flat for Ever. The Delhi High Court Said That Needs a Registered Deed.

A company rented a Daryaganj first floor in 1986 at ₹9,000 a month and was still there in 2026. It said the owner's husband had promised it permanent possession, and that the high rent was the price. On 23 September 2026 the Delhi High Court upheld the decree evicting it. A right to stay for ever can only be created by a registered document. A side deal with a relative does not reduce the owner's title. And the tenant's own written statement was enough to decree possession without a trial.

The case

The appeal is RSA 48/2019, M/s Ronuk Industries Ltd v. Manju Khanna, in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CNR No. DLHC010131262019, heard by Neena Bansal Krishna, J. It was reserved on 13 July 2026 and pronounced and uploaded on 23 September 2026. The judgment runs to 16 pages and carries no neutral citation.

The owner sued for possession of about 1,000 square feet at 4405/2, Kothi No. 5, First Floor, Ansari Road, Daryaganj. Her case, at paragraphs 3 and 4, was that she let the premises to the company at ₹9,000 a month under a lease agreement dated 29 July 1986, and ended the tenancy by a legal notice dated 7 August 2003.

The civil judge decreed possession on 7 November 2016 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lets a court pass a decree on admissions in the pleadings. The Additional District Judge upheld that decree. The company brought a second appeal.

The tenant's defence

The company's written statement, summarised at paragraphs 10 to 13, ran like this:

• It had come in on an oral agreement with the owner's husband, who presented himself as the owner and received the rent.
• Because of its long commercial venture, it was agreed that it would stay on a permanent basis, and it paid a premium for that.
• The ₹9,000 a month was high for the area, and it was the price of permanence, payable for 20 years as a guarantee.
• The 1986 agreement was unregistered and under-stamped, so it could not be read to prove the terms.

It also denied receiving the 2003 notice and pointed to a demand draft of ₹19,50,000 that the owner had prepared in its name, as proof that it had paid for permanent possession.

What the court held

The tenant admitted it was a tenant. Paragraph 53 quotes the written statement: the company was "initially inducted as a tenant in the suit premises". Paragraph 56 adds its admission that it paid ₹9,000 a month "to Mr. Uma Shankar through the Plaintiff". The court held that these were "clear admissions", even though the company denied signing the 1986 agreement.

Dealing with the husband changes nothing. Paragraph 57: even if the company dealt with the owner's husband, "that does not take away the ownership of the Plaintiff in the suit premises or her right to claim possession".

Permanence needs a registered document. Paragraph 59 endorses the two lower courts: possession on a permanent basis "could have been done only through registered document", none existed, and the claim was "patently barred under Section 17 Registration Act."

The demand draft proves the opposite. Paragraph 60 reads the ₹19,50,000 draft as an owner "keen to get back the possession on whatever terms", not as proof that the premises were let for ever.

The suit is itself notice to quit. On the disputed 2003 notice, paragraph 62 relies on M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728: even without a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, "the institution of the Suit itself constitutes a notice to quit".

Possession now, money later. Paragraph 63 notes that mesne profits, the damages for use and occupation, still need evidence. That did not hold back the possession decree. Paragraph 65 finds no substantial question of law and dismisses the appeal.

What it means for an NRI landlord

Three parts of this case map onto how NRI owners let property.

A relative may collect the rent. Here the husband did, for decades. The court held that whatever the husband said to the tenant, the owner's title and her right to possession stood. The argument still cost the owner years in court. Our guide to managing tenants from abroad covers who collects rent and in whose name.

The lease was unregistered, and the owner still won. That was because the tenant admitted the tenancy in its own pleadings. An owner cannot count on the other side making that admission. A registered lease removes the argument before it starts.

The notice to quit was disputed, and the owner still won. The court applied the settled rule that the suit itself is notice to quit. This case was decided under what paragraph 62 calls "the general law". The trial court recorded, at paragraph 22, that the rent was above ₹3,500 a month. Tenancies under a state rent control statute follow that statute's own grounds and procedure, and this judgment does not speak to them.

The case took from 2003 to 2026, and mesne profits are still to be tried. For the eviction route itself, start with our guide on how to evict a tenant in India as an NRI. A dispute on a specific tenancy belongs with a lawyer who can read that file.

FAQ

Can a tenant claim permanent possession on the basis of an oral promise? Not on these facts. The Delhi High Court held on 23 September 2026 that a right to possession on a permanent basis could only be created through a registered document, and the claim was barred under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

If a relative collected the rent, can the tenant use that against the owner? The court held it does not take away the owner's title or her right to possession from an admitted tenant. Paragraph 57 of the judgment says so.

What if the tenant says it never received the notice ending the tenancy? In a suit under the general law, the court applied Nopany Investments (2008): filing the eviction suit itself counts as notice to quit, even without a section 106 notice.

Can a court order possession without a full trial? Yes, where the tenant's own pleadings admit the tenancy. The civil judge decreed possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and both appeals upheld it. The claim for damages still went to evidence.

Was the landlord's offer to repay ₹19,50,000 an admission of permanent tenancy? No. The court read the demand draft as an owner willing to pay to get possession back, not as proof that the premises were let for ever.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• M/s Ronuk Industries Ltd v. Manju Khanna, RSA 48/2019, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CNR No. DLHC010131262019, Neena Bansal Krishna J, reserved 13 July 2026, pronounced and uploaded 23 September 2026, 16 pages. The court's own signed PDF was downloaded by our desk on 24 September 2026, HTTP 200, 674,727 bytes, sha256 dbb6cfe26fc47b056be003db16cc71b198bd439895514979b3d8084a9249fa8a, and read in full: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/NBK23092026RSA482019_172800.pdf
• The judgment PDF carries no neutral citation, so none is given here.
• M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728, as the judgment above states it at paragraph 62. We did not open the 2008 report ourselves.
• The Delhi High Court's date-wise judgment search sits behind a captcha, so our desk did not confirm this case on the court's listing. The PDF above is served from the court's own domain.