A Tenant's Unregistered 2005 Agreement Could Not Change Her Registered 1977 Lease, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Held

A tenant in Rohtak held a registered lease from 1977 that gave her access from one side of the property. In 2005 she paid a later owner ₹1,23,600 and took an unregistered document letting her open gates on two more sides. The owners who bought the property after him sued. On 23 September 2026 the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the 2005 document could not vary the registered lease, because a document used to change rights under a registered lease has to be registered itself.

The case

The judgment is in two connected second appeals, RSA-2114-2026, Sachin Dhall and Others v. Seema Jain and Others, and RSA-2115-2026, Mohinder Rani Lamba (since deceased) through LRs v. Seema Jain and Others. Justice Deepak Gupta of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh reserved it on 21 September 2026 and pronounced it on 23 September 2026. It runs to 10 pages.

Both appeals challenged the judgment and decree of 18 March 2026 of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, which had reversed a trial court decree of 24 January 2023. The judgment describes the first appeal as the defendant's appeal. The second was filed by persons who say they are lessees under the defendant (paragraph 1).

No party in the case is an NRI. The judgment does not describe any owner, tenant or lessee as living abroad.

The facts

As the judgment records them (paragraphs 2 to 4):

• The property belonged to Jai Jaiwanti, who leased it to the defendant by a registered lease deed dated 5 April 1977, for the period 1 March 1977 to 29 February 2016.
• The registered lease gave the defendant a right of light, air, sewerage, ingress and egress from the southern side, towards Subhash Road, Rohtak. The plaintiffs say it gave no right to install gates, windows or drainage on the northern, eastern or western sides.
• Sunny Bhatnagar later acquired the property under a civil court decree and sold it to the plaintiffs by sale deeds.
• The plaintiffs say the defendant installed a gate on the northern side and sought to open more. They sued for injunctions.
• The defendant's answer was a document dated 9 May 2005 between her and Sunny Bhatnagar, then the owner. On payment of ₹1,23,600 towards the lease amount, he agreed she could open a gate towards the eastern side, which had by then become a public street, and towards the northern side.

The trial court dismissed the suit. It held that the dispute was between landlord and tenant, so the forum was the Rent Controller under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The first appellate court reversed that and decreed the suit (paragraphs 5 and 6).

What the court held

The civil court had jurisdiction

The appellants relied on Yogesh Kumar v. Ashok Kumar, decided on 10 October 2017 (paragraph 7). The court accepted that where the 1973 Act applies and the relief is in substance eviction, Section 13 of the Act governs (paragraphs 9 and 10). But the plaintiffs here did not seek eviction or possession (paragraphs 12 and 15). They challenged a right the defendant claimed under the 2005 document. Whether that document was a valid variation of the registered lease, and whether it binds later purchasers, are questions of civil right, and "the mere fact that one of the parties is a lessee does not, by itself, transfer determination of all such questions to the Rent Controller" (paragraph 16). The trial court erred in treating "lease dispute" as the same thing as "rent-control dispute" (paragraph 20).

The 2005 document could not vary the registered lease

The 1977 lease was registered; the 2005 document was not (paragraphs 23 and 24). The 2005 document did not record an existing fact; it purported to confer a right the lease did not give (paragraph 24). Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 requires registration of instruments that create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish rights in immovable property, and Section 49 restricts the use of an instrument that needed registration but was not registered (paragraph 25).

Collateral purpose did not help

An unregistered document can still be looked at for a collateral purpose, but the expression "collateral purpose" cannot be used to prove the transaction or variation for which registration is mandatory (paragraph 26). The right to open gates and windows was not collateral to the 2005 document. It was the right the document was relied on to create (paragraphs 27 and 35).

Rent and duration are not the test

The trial court's line between essential terms, such as duration or rent, and conditions on use could not save the 2005 document, which "purports to create an additional right, which was expressly withheld under the registered instrument" (paragraph 29).

One document for the right, another to change it

The appellants could not rely on the registered lease for their leasehold rights and on an unregistered document to alter the incidents of those same rights (paragraph 33). The court noted that Sunny Bhatnagar signed the 2005 document after he had agreed on 11 August 2004 to sell the property to the plaintiffs, but held that the result did not depend on that agreement to sell (paragraphs 31 and 32).

Sub-lessees stand where the tenant stands

The lessees in the second appeal claimed through the defendant. If she could not establish the right, they could not either (paragraph 37).

Finding no error of law that called for interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court dismissed both appeals (paragraphs 38 and 39).

What it means for an NRI owner

No NRI is a party to this case. The ruling matters to owners who let property from abroad for two reasons.

First, an owner who lives abroad and lets a flat on a registered lease may agree a change with the tenant by letter, email or a signed note sent across, without registering it. In this case the High Court refused to give legal effect to an unregistered document that granted a right the registered lease did not give.

Second, an owner who buys or inherits a let property takes over the registered lease. In this case the purchasers relied on the registered 1977 lease, and the court refused to let a 2005 document signed by the earlier owner enlarge the tenant's rights against them.

Two limits. The ruling applies Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 to a lease that was registered in the first place; it says nothing about leave and licence agreements or short unregistered rent agreements. And the jurisdiction point turns on the Haryana rent law of 1973; each state's rent law sets its own forum.

Our guide on managing tenants from abroad covers lease paperwork, and the guide on evicting a tenant in India covers the Rent Controller route. The Delhi High Court ruling on a tenant's claimed oral promise and the Supreme Court ruling on a tenant holding an agreement to sell deal with tenants who claim rights beyond the lease. A dispute over your own lease belongs with a lawyer who knows the law of the state your property is in.

FAQ

What did the Punjab and Haryana High Court decide on 23 September 2026? It dismissed two second appeals and upheld a Rohtak appellate decree that refused to give legal effect to an unregistered 2005 document claiming to vary a registered 1977 lease (paragraphs 36 to 39).

Can an unregistered document change the terms of a registered lease? Not where it is used to prove a change in rights. The court held that a document relied on to create a right the registered lease withheld needs registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that "collateral purpose" cannot be used to prove the variation itself (paragraphs 25 to 29).

Did the dispute have to go to the Rent Controller? No. The plaintiffs did not seek eviction, so the civil court could decide whether the 2005 document was a valid variation of the lease (paragraphs 12 to 22).

Can an earlier owner's unregistered deal bind later buyers? In this case the purchasers relied on the registered 1977 lease, and the court refused to let an unregistered document signed by the earlier owner enlarge the tenant's rights against them (paragraphs 16 and 31 to 33).

Is any party an NRI? No. The judgment does not describe any party as living abroad.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• Sachin Dhall and Others v. Seema Jain and Others, RSA-2114-2026, with Mohinder Rani Lamba (since deceased) through LRs v. Seema Jain and Others, RSA-2115-2026, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Deepak Gupta J, pronounced 23 September 2026, uploaded 24 September 2026, 10 pages. Full text, carrying the court's digital attestation on every page, read on 4 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108402728/
• The same judgment, filed under RSA-2115-2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13628213/
• The judgment numbers two consecutive paragraphs as 5. We cite the trial court's view as the second paragraph 5.