Dear Client,

I would like to inform you that,

In your situation, a request to declare the plaintiff as a tenant without a rental agreement or occupation cannot be considered. In order for a lease agreement to be legitimate, it must include mutual agreement, complete rent payment, and possession, all of which are absent in this particular situation. If a rental contract was not signed and the plaintiff did not meet their responsibilities, they have no grounds to assert tenancy.

Part performance by the transferee is necessary for Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of part performance) to be applicable. The plaintiff is not eligible for protection under this section since he did not fulfill his obligations in the contract.

A true owner is typically not allowed to be subjected to an injunction. You can challenge the plaintiff's effort to prevent you from managing your own property with an ex-parte order. You can find support from the ruling of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779, which affirmed that a tenant or claimant without legal possession or agreement cannot seek injunction against the rightful owner.

An unmarked complaint is also not considered legitimate according to Order VI Rule 14 of the CPC, 1908, which requires pleadings to be signed by the party or their authorized agent. Additionally, it should also be raised during arguments as it questions the validity.

Thank you.Hope this answers your query.

1. A lease of immovable property from year to year or for more than one year can only be made by a registered lease agreement.
2. In the absence of any such registered lease, there is no commencement of lease.
3. An unsigned plaint is not a plaint at all, it has to returned at the It is may be that initially the  plaint was not signed and the  plaintiff subsequently signed the  plaint before numbering.
4. An ex parte interim order not to create third party rights is passed.
5. You can submit an application for rejection of plaint on the ground there is no lease agreement more so there is no registered lease agreement .

1) plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs 

2) plaintiff has to be signed by plaintiff and verified before registrar 

3) there is no rent agreement signed between parties 

4) he has failed to pay rentals as agreed upon 

5) no permanent injunction can be granted 

- Since, he is not in the physical possession of the property , then he cannot get stay order from the Court only on the ground of issued receipt of the payment. 

- Further, since there is no rent agreement is executed between the parties , then there is no relation exist as landlord and tenant. 

- Further, only on the ground of issued receipt in the absence of a rent agreement and physical possession , he cannot be declared as the tenant. 

- Further, a plaint cannot be filed without the signature and affidavit of the plaintiff ,it means that an un-signed copy has been sent to you. 

Without any valid rental or lease agreement he cannot claim himself to be a lessee neither he can claim the privileges of a tenant in the property which was not at all occupied by him nor there was any rent paid by him during the interim period.

Moreover he paid a partial amount towards the agreed advance amount hence it cannot be concluded that he had paid the advance or security amount towards leasing the property. 

You can file a petition to vacate the exparte order restricting you to not to create third party interest in the property.

If the P claims that he is the lessee then he has to produce a registered lease deed since lease is a transfer of property and is compulsorily registrable u/s 17 of the registration, unless his claim is that the lease was granted to him on month to month basis for which a registered lease deed is not required 

The P cannot obviously ask for the relief of permanent injunction. His claim is that of a lessee and not of an owner. So the actual owner can never be permanently injuncted in respect of his own property since the lessor owner has a right of re entry in the demised property upon breach of the lease conditions and also has a reversionary interest in the leased property 

Thus the suit so far it seeks the relief of a permanent injunction against the owner is not maintainable 

However I assume that there is a pending application under order 7 rule 11 regarding rejection of the plaint /maintainability of suit. However a 7/11 application can only be tried based on averments in the plaint and not considering defense of defendant. So the court may hold that the suit will have to await a trial and may not reject the plaint at the threshold 

However if the So called lessee has not sought for relief of possession then seeking a declaration of his alleged leasehold rights without seeking relief of possession,  is unheard of , as no tenant would only be interested in a mere paper declaration about his lease right without actual physical possession of the leased property. Thus the suit can be attacked under 7/11 clause a , that is, there is no cause of action in favor of P. 

It appears that relief of possession is omitted to be sought in order to save court fee which is payable on the market value of the subject property 

Also If the P omits to sue in respect of the relief of possession,  then without leave of the court,  he cannot sue in future for such relief of possession (just check Order 2 of cpc) 

I suggest you file a counter claim in the P's suit under Order 8 Rule 6A for a declaration that you are in lawful possession and for a negative declaration that the Property was never agreed to be let to the P on lease basis. As you are in possession,  no court fee is payable except nominal court fee for relief of declaration 

Correction in my above reply - in the counter claim you claim the relief that the contract to lease was validly terminated by you since the P never paid the full advance lease rent as agreed despite repeated requests and thus as at present there is no lease contract 

Offer to return the advance amount 

Since he has filed the suit, you may have to challenge his properly and can inform court that you are ready to return his advance amount.

Since no rental agreement nor he occupied the premises neither he paid any rent so far he cannot prove landlord tenant relationship hence you can challenge his case on merits.

Plaint is not maintainable at all. 

Based on the facts provided, here is an expert legal analysis and advice:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The plaintiff's suit seeking a decree of declaration to establish him as a lessee and for permanent injunction against the defendant (owner) appears to be not maintainable. The following legal principles support this position:

a) A person cannot be declared a tenant or lessee without a valid lease deed and without being put in possession of the property .

b) A mere agreement to lease or an incomplete transaction does not create a lease or tenancy .

c) A suit for permanent injunction against the true owner restraining him from dealing with his property is not maintainable.

2. Unsigned Plaint:
As per Order VI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, every pleading (including the plaint) must be signed by the party and their pleader. An unsigned plaint is a defective plaint and can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

3. Advance Payment and Receipt:
The fact that the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- and was issued a receipt mentioning it as an advance and part payment, does not automatically create a lease or tenancy. It merely shows an intention to enter into a lease agreement, which did not materialize due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the balance amount and sign the rent agreement.

4. Suggested Arguments:
Based on the above legal principles and case laws, you can argue the following points:

a) The suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff cannot be declared a lessee or tenant without a valid lease deed and without being put in possession of the property.

b) The mere payment of an advance and issuance of a receipt does not create a lease or tenancy, as the essential requirements of a valid lease agreement were not fulfilled.

c) The suit for permanent injunction against the true owner restraining him from dealing with his property is not maintainable.

d) The plaint itself is defective and liable to be rejected as it is unsigned, violating Order VI Rule 14 of CPC.

e) The ex-parte order passed by the court restraining the creation of third-party rights is unsustainable in law, as the plaintiff has no legal right or interest in the property.

It is advisable to file a comprehensive written statement raising these objections and citing relevant case laws to support your arguments. Additionally, you may consider filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of being unsigned and legally untenable.

Dear Client,

With respect to civil suit filed against you by the plaintiff seeking a declaration as a lessee and a permanent injunction, on this one, it clear that the suit is not actionable at law or in equity because the plaintiff does not seek possession of the property and cannot therefore be regarded as a lessee under a valid lease agreement. Thus payment of an advance does not make the person a lessee as according to the Indian Contract act, 1872 there exists certain ingredients for making the contract a valid one. In addition, ensure a point is made to the effect that a permanent injunction cannot be passed against the person who is the real owner of the property under the Specific Relief Act 1963. The issues of filing a counter-claim for damages in contract as well as the legal implication of this legal case is discussed. The aspect of a Contract under the license agreement following the Indian Contract Act Section 2(h), Section 10 and Section 73, the determination of the Proprietary Right, Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, Section 106 of the same act, Section 117, The Remedy of Rescission by delivering up the thing and compensation Section 37 of Specific Relief Act, and Section 38 of Specific Relief Act.

Hope you find this answer suitable for resolving you query.

- As per Delhi High Court , A receipt is not an agreement. 

You have not mentioned details of the judgment for which you need the title 

Delhi High Court

Ganpati Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. vs Sudarshana Duggal & Anr. on 24 May, 2012

Author: A.K. Pathak

Bench: A.K. Pathak

 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+ IA No. 15597/2011 (u/O 7 R 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in

 CS(OS) 1801/2011

 Reserved on 26th April, 2012

 Decided on 24th May, 2012

GANPATI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff

 Through: Mr. M.K. Gahlaut, Proxy

 Counsel for Mr. Sachin

 Mishra, Adv.

 versus

SUDARSHANA DUGGAL & ANR. ..... Defendants

 Through: Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Sr.

 Adv. with Mr. Ashish

 Kothari, Advs.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

A.K. PATHAK, J.

this case, a perusal of the document, that is, „Receipt‟, specific performance whereof has been sought by the plaintiff, clearly shows that it is merely a „Receipt‟ and does not qualify to be an "Agreement". Agreement is silent as regard to the manner in which property was to be developed by the plaintiff as also the consequences entailing in favour of the defendant in case of breach of such terms of development of the property. Document has been signed only by the defendant and notby the plaintiff, thus, it does not bind the plaintiff for the consequential damages etc. in case of non-performance. It has notbeen mentioned in the receipt as to within how much time property was to be developed and by whom and in what manner. It has also not been mentioned as to within how much time construction was to be completed, inasmuch as, who would take requisite permissions from the appropriate authorities including sanctioning of the plan. All these ingredients are missing which are pre-requisite for a collaboration agreement of such a nature. The receipt as per the plaintiff binds the defendant but on the other hand, in my view, the obligations to be performed by the plaintiff are uncertain. For all these reasons, in my view, the document is merely a receipt and not an agreement for development of the property.

Mere Payment Of Advance At Time Of Entering Into Lease Would Not Inure To The Benefit Of Tenant: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the tenant as it did not find any need to interfere in the finding of the trial Court, passing the order of eviction over non-payment of rent. The court ruled that mere payment of advance amount at the time of entering into lease would not inure to the benefit of tenant.

Delhi High Court
Poonam Kakkar vs Vaishali & Anr. on 9 May, 2023
A rental agreement is a legal document that outlines the terms and conditions of a tenancy between a landlord and a tenant. It includes details such as the rent amount, security deposit, and the term of the agreement.

- You can go through the judgement of Ganpati Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. vs Sudarshana Duggal & Anr.

Dear Client,

The Supreme Court has not held that a receipt is no agreement but what has been settled law that a receipt alone will not amount to an agreement unless the receipt and terms contained in it constitute an agreement under the India Contract Act, 1872. In Asha John Divianathan v. In Vikram Malhotra (2021) the Supreme Court has made it very clear that where RBI permission is necessary for a transaction, it cannot be enforced without permission although the sender has given a mere receipt, this means where legal formalities have to be complied with they cannot be displaced by a mere acknowledgment. Additionally, in the principles outlined in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) it is equally true that the unstamped document cannot be accorded the legal enforceability and therefore cannot be substituted by a receipt alone. It advisable to make sure that every legal requirement for enforcing the agreement as a contract has been complied with the provisions of the Indian Contract Act.

Hope you find this answer helpful in resolving your problem.