🏠 No Ownership Through Consent Decree: Tenant Cannot Claim Title Without Registered Transfer
🛣️ Introduction
Consent decrees and compromise orders are frequently used to resolve landlord-tenant disputes. However, confusion often arises when monetary settlements are mistaken as transfers of ownership.
In Beena & Ors. v. Charan Das (D) Thr. LRs. (2024 INSC 680), the Supreme Court of India decisively clarified that payment of money pursuant to a consent order in eviction proceedings does not confer ownership rights, unless there is a legally valid and registered instrument of transfer.
This judgment reaffirms foundational principles of property law, rent control jurisprudence, and execution of decrees, while cautioning courts against over-interpretation of compromise orders.
🧾 Legal Framework Involved
The dispute arose under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, particularly:
Section 14 – Eviction on grounds such as dilapidated condition and bona fide requirement
Section 21 – Appellate remedies
Additionally, principles under:
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Registration Act, 1908
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
were central to the Court’s reasoning.
🛣️ Facts of the Case
The landlord initiated eviction proceedings in 1977 against the tenant on grounds of dilapidated condition and personal necessity.
On 05.09.1979, parties entered into a consent settlement before the Rent Controller.
As per the settlement:
The tenant agreed to deposit ₹12,500 in court by 15.12.1979
If deposited → eviction petition deemed dismissed
If not deposited → eviction deemed allowed
The tenant deposited the amount within time, resulting in dismissal of eviction proceedings.
Subsequently:
The tenant attempted to execute the consent order claiming ownership.
Later, he filed a civil suit asserting that the deposit amount represented sale consideration, entitling him to ownership and possession.
Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit.
The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the findings, holding the tenant to be owner.
This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
⚖️ Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether a tenant, by depositing money under a consent order passed in eviction proceedings, acquires ownership rights over the tenanted premises in the absence of a registered conveyance deed?
⚖️ Decision of the Supreme Court
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeal.
📌 Held:
The High Court committed a patent error
The consent order did not transfer ownership
The tenant never acquired title to the property
The suit claiming ownership was not maintainable
The High Court judgment was set aside, and the trial court decree was restored .
⚖️ Reasons for the Decision
1. Consent Order Cannot Confer Title
The Court held that:
The consent order only determined the fate of eviction proceedings
It did not record any transfer of ownership
Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to transfer title in eviction proceedings
2. No Registered Instrument, No Transfer
The Supreme Court reaffirmed:
Ownership of immovable property can pass only through a registered deed
Payment of money, even if described as “value of the house”, does not substitute registration
In absence of a sale deed, no title can vest
3. Executing Court Cannot Travel Beyond Decree
The tenant’s attempt to execute the consent order to:
Record himself as owner
was held to be wholly impermissible.
📌 An executing court cannot rewrite or expand a decree.
4. High Court’s Interpretation Was Perverse
The Supreme Court criticised the High Court for:
Reading ownership rights where none existed
Ignoring settled principles of property law
Overlooking that eviction proceedings are summary in nature
📌 Key Takeaways from the Judgment
📌 Consent decrees in rent matters do not create ownership rights
📌 Payment of money ≠ transfer of title
📌 Ownership of immovable property requires registered conveyance
📌 Rent Controllers cannot adjudicate title
📌 Executing courts cannot go beyond the decree
🔚 Conclusion
The decision in Beena & Ors. v. Charan Das (2024) is a crucial reaffirmation that property rights cannot be acquired through implication, equity, or convenience, but only through strict compliance with statutory requirements.
By restoring doctrinal clarity, the Supreme Court has prevented dangerous precedents that could unsettle landlord-tenant law and property transactions across India. The judgment reinforces that consent orders settle disputes—they do not rewrite property law.