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 which cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava 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.”

The respondent-landlord filed a rent case before the Rent Authority, Baghpat seeking eviction of the petitioner from premises let out to him under a rent deed dated 24.12.2020 at a monthly rent of Rs. 75,000/-. It was pleaded that no rent was paid after the initial advance and the tenancy was terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The petitioner pleaded that though the rent deed was executed, it was never acted upon and he was never put in possession, so no tenancy came into existence. His application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the rent case was rejected by the Rent Authority, and the order was upheld in revision by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Referring to its earlier decision in Neeraj Maheshwari v. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj, the Court observed that under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, it only has to see whether the pleaded averments disclose a cause of action, not whether they are true or whether the defence will succeed.

The Court observed that the petitioner's objection did not point to any gap in the respondent's pleadings but disputed the effect of the transaction pleaded. Whether possession was delivered and whether the deed was acted upon would require examination of evidence, it held,

“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.”

It added that the petitioner's application to the Registrar for cancellation of the rent deed did not by itself settle the question, and its evidentiary value was for the Rent Authority to examine.

Declining to interfere under Article 227, the Court clarified that it had not decided whether a tenancy existed and left all pleas open before the Rent Authority, which was expected to decide the case preferably within the period under Section 33(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Case Title - Hem Chand vs. M/s Padmawati Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel

Counsel for Respondent :- Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, Raunak Gupta

Click Here To Read/Download