Tenant claims protection from eviction under unregistered rent agreement signed by owner’s brother; Madras High Court denies saying he failed to prove tenancy and was an unlawful occupant
You are a tenant in a property, but the rent agreement is unregistered. Are you entitled to protection from eviction proceedings? The Madras High Court has held that a person claiming tenancy under an unregistered rental agreement allegedly executed by the property owner’s brother must establish that a valid landlord-tenant relationship exists.In the absence of such proof, the occupant would be treated as being in unauthorised possession and cannot claim legal protection against eviction.
What the case is about
The case was filed by the tenant who occupied a property in Tamil Nadu. He sought an injunction that would prevent the owner of the property from evicting him.The dispute had even reached the police before the litigation in the case began. In 1989, the property owner and his sons allegedly visited the tenant’s residence and damaged trees on the premises.The police subsequently advised the parties to resolve the dispute through the courts. The tenant then pursued legal action. The Madras High Court delivered its judgment on September 21, 2026, dismissing the tenant’s case.The dispute involves competing accounts of how the tenant came to occupy the premises. The property owner presented a different version of events.The family consisted of four brothers. The property owner’s brother allegedly entered into an unregistered rental agreement with the tenant.The disputed property belonged to the owner through adverse possession. For reasons that are not known, he allowed his brother to use the south-western portion of the property for operating a shop. The brother then allegedly rented out that portion to the tenant who remained there for over 10 years, and subsequently refused to vacate it, according to an ET report.There was also a separate family dispute over the ownership of the same property. The property owner and his three brothers had been involved in litigation over the title. The dispute was eventually decided in the property owner’s favour by the Madras High Court on March 18, 2026.In this case of tenancy, the property owner’s counsel argued that the alleged unregistered rental agreement could not be admitted as evidence to establish the tenant’s claim.The argument was that the owner’s brother himself occupied the premises only through ‘permissive possession’. Therefore, he had no authority to let it out to another person.The owner’s lawyer also submitted that a person who occupies a property unlawfully cannot obtain an injunction to prevent the rightful owner from recovering possession of the said property.With its September 21, 2026 judgment, the Madras High Court rejected the tenant’s plea for an injunction.
Why did the tenant lose the case?
The Madras High Court noted that although the plaintiff approached it claiming to be a tenant, he did not identify the person who was supposedly his landlord. He also failed to state the duration of his tenancy or the rent payable. Further, he did not deposit any outstanding rent before the court.The unregistered rental agreement mentioned a monthly rent of Rs 150. However, the court found no material on record establishing that the tenant had ever paid this amount.The court observed that if the plaintiff had genuinely occupied the property as a tenant despite the ongoing title dispute, he could have deposited the alleged monthly rent in court after initiating the present proceedings. He failed to take even this step.The Madras High Court noted the property owner’s submission that he had described the tenant as an unauthorised person occupying the premises. The property owner had asked him to either pay monthly rent of Rs 500 or leave the property.Instead of complying with either demand, the tenant approached the court.The High Court observed that the tenant’s conduct indicated that he was neither a bona fide occupant nor a genuine tenant.The Madras High Court ruled: “The plaintiff (tenant) herein is neither a tenant nor a lawful occupant and secondly, for that reason, he cannot seek injunction against the true owner.”Consequently, the tenant’s plea was rejected, leaving him without an injunction protecting him from eviction.Navod Prasannan, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET that the dispute highlights an important principle: the validity of a rental agreement depends on whether the person executing it has the legal authority to do so.Although the man claimed to be a tenant, the agreement he relied on had allegedly been signed by the property owner’s brother. The brother had merely been permitted to operate a small bunk shop on the premises and did not have the right to rent the property to another person. Further, the Madras High Court had already recognised the owner’s title in an earlier family dispute and held that the same finding applied to the property involved in this case.Prasannan also pointed to several shortcomings in the tenant’s evidence. The tenant could not establish that he had paid rent, had not deposited any rent in court, failed to call the person who allegedly signed the agreement as a witness, and did not respond when the owner demanded that he either clear the rent or vacate the premises.Taking these circumstances into account, the Madras High Court found that he was not in lawful occupation of the property. An unauthorised occupant, the court held, cannot obtain an injunction to prevent the rightful owner from taking possession.
