Tenant’s son sold landlord’s property to two buyers despite 2005 SC eviction order; Madras HC rejects buyers’ plea for this reason

A recent Madras High Court judgement describes how a tenant family defied a Supreme Court tenant eviction order and went so far as to sell the landlord’s property to two third-party buyers. Unaware of the eviction order, the buyers believed the tenant had the right to sell the property and accused the landlord of causing interference in their peaceful possession. The new buyers filed a case against the landlord to restrain him.

In its October 29, 2026 order, The Madras High Court noted that the buyer based his claim on this property on a sale deed signed by the tenant’s son. But the son had no right to sell this property since the Supreme Court had ordered his parents to vacate the property. ) The court therefore found no reason to restrain the landlord.

On this ground, the buyer lost the case and the landlord won.


Also read: Tenant paid Rs 6.5 lakh to buy landlady’s property; SC admits sale agreement as evidence and says possession doesn’t finalise sale without a sale deed

Supreme Court had ordered eviction of the tenant in 2005

The property is in Vathikuppam and was given on rent to Mr Joseph, who is Mr Ronaldo’s father. On November 23, 2005, in Civil Appeal No. 5384 of 2001, the Supreme Court had ordered Mr Joseph to be evicted from this property by August 31, 2006 and to peacefully hand over the possession of the property to the landlord Mr Paulin.

However, Joseph did not leave the property. , Instead his son Ronaldo sold this property to two buyers by executing a registered sale deed on January 27, 2012. When Mr Paulin asked how the tenant’s son could sell his property, the tenant’s son answered that his father (Joseph) had signed a settlement deed on August 10, 2001 and on that basis, he (tenant’s son, Ronaldo) got the legal backing to sell Paulin (landlord’s) property.

Also read: 'Agreement to sell' doesn’t mean property ownership: Landlord wins case in court after tenants claim ownership of the property

As soon as Paulin heard Ronaldo’s justification, he filed a case for cancellation of the settlement deed and the sale deeds before the District Registrar, Puducherry, who, by an order dated December 11, 2015, cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the new buyers.

The new buyers who had signed the sale deed with the tenant’s son (Paulin) now felt aggrieved and filed a case against the landlord (Paulin) to restrain him. The new buyers asked the court for a grant of relief of permanent injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

The Madras High Court said: “In the case in hand, it is a text book case where the tenant in the suit property, in spite of giving an undertaking before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to vacate and hand over the premises, managed to create a settlement deed in favour of his son, who, in turn, created two sale deeds, one in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff and another in favour of the said Ms.Nithiyadevi.”

In 2014 , when Ms Nithiyadevi (one of the new buyers) had filed a case , the Madras High Court had ruled that as a subsequent purchaser herself, she had no right over Paulin’s property and on the contrary was in illegal occupation of the property.

On October 29, 2026, Paulin’s (the landlord) family won the case in the Madras High Court.

Also read: Landlord filed case to evict tenant but tenant bought 50% share from co-owner mid-dispute and filed partition of property case: HC gives no relief to landlord on eviction case

Why did the landlord win and the new buyers lose the case?

Kalpit Khandelwal, Partner, Aekom Legal said to ET Wealth Online: The new buyer's lost the case as his title to this property was only as good as the person he brought it from i..e Ronaldo. However, Ronaldo had no right to sell this property, so the new buyer's title turned bad. Ronaldo claimed that his father who was a tenant in this property had executed a settlement deed in his favour and by way of this settlement deed he got the right to sell this property. But Ronaldo hid the fact that the Supreme Court in its 2005 judgement had already ordered his father (tenant) to vacate the house.

A settlement deed from such a tenant could not pass title to Ronaldo, and so Ronaldo's sale deeds passed nothing.

Thus the Madras High Court called this a "text book case", found that Ronaldo had concealed the earlier proceedings, and held that this injunction suit was an abuse of process and re-litigation of the same property. So the Madras High Court struck the suit off the register under Article 227, noting that these grounds could not have been raised under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

What should landlords do?

Khandelwal says that the most important lesson for landlords who have secured an tenant eviction decree from court is to immediately file an execution case for enforcing this tenant eviction order since a long wait time can hinder the eviction process and the tenant.

In this case despite the eviction proceedings, the tenant executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his son and the son subsequently executed sale deeds in favour of third parties. Khandelwal says that this is why landlords should always check their own property registration records so that if any tenant tries to create third-party rights in his property, the landlord atleast gets to know this.

Khandelwal also says that this case highlights that a registered sale deed does not always means you are the owner of a property. In this case the tenant signed a sale deed and sold the property, however the tenant had no right to sell this property, so the new buyer's does not get ownership rights in this property.

Lastly, landlords should also put a clause in the rent agreement preventing the tenant from creating third party rights in the property. The clause can't prevent fraud by tenant, but it gives the landlord a much clearer contractual record when taking legal action.

Madras High Court discussion

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court heard this case

The Madras High Court said that the new buyers had concealed the Supreme Court tenant eviction order and instead filed a case in high court to restrain the landlord. The Madras High Court said that the acts on the part of the original tenant executing a settlement deed in favour of his son and he, in turn, executing two sale deeds in favour of the new buyers would amount to contumacious conduct and tantamount to contempt of court.

The Madras High Court said that Mr Paulin, the owner of the property, ( ) was made to run from pillar to post in spite of succeeding in the earlier round of litigation up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2005.

The Madras High Court observed that the present case filed by the new buyers was a clear abuse of the process of the court and a re-litigation, which are not grounds that can be raised under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

The Madras High Court said this is a fit case where this Court has to necessarily exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of The Constitution of India in order to prevent further miscarriage of justice and the supervisory jurisdiction has to be necessarily exercised in the present case.