Mr. Arjun Sharma owned a residential apartment which he leased to Mr. Rakesh Verma under a written tenancy agreement for a period of eleven months. The agreement required the tenant to pay monthly rent on or before the fifth day of every month and prohibited subletting or unauthorized occupation of the premises.

A few months after entering into the tenancy agreement, Mr. Sharma relocated abroad for employment purposes. Initially, rent payments were made regularly through bank transfers and communication between the parties remained cordial.

Facts of the Case

In January 2026, the tenant began delaying rent payments. By March 2026, no rent had been paid for two consecutive months. When contacted by the landlord, the tenant cited temporary financial difficulties and assured that the arrears would soon be cleared.

Despite repeated reminders, the tenant neither paid the outstanding rent nor vacated the premises. Communication gradually became infrequent, and the landlord learned through neighbours that the tenant had openly stated that the owner was unlikely to return in the near future and would therefore be unable to take effective action against him.

The tenant continued occupying the property without paying rent while refusing to provide any definite timeline for payment. Concerned about increasing arrears and the possibility of losing effective control over his property, Mr. Sharma approached a law firm seeking legal advice.

Legal Issue

Whether a tenant who continues occupying leased premises without paying rent can legally retain possession merely because the landlord is residing elsewhere, and what remedies are available to the landlord for recovery of rent and possession of the property.

Risk Analysis

The tenant’s conduct constitutes a serious breach of the tenancy agreement and exposes the landlord to continuing financial losses. Every month of delay increases the amount of unpaid rent and complicates the process of recovery.

If prompt legal action is not taken, disputes regarding documentation, tenancy terms, and possession may become more difficult to resolve. Prolonged inaction may also embolden the tenant to resist lawful eviction proceedings or create third-party complications through unauthorized occupation arrangements.

The landlord further faces the risk that the dispute may gradually evolve into allegations concerning illegal possession of property India, particularly if the tenant continues to occupy the premises after lawful termination of the tenancy and refuses to comply with legal notices. Although ownership rights remain unaffected, delayed enforcement can significantly increase litigation costs and prolong recovery of possession.

Legal Remedies

1. Issuance of Legal Notice and Termination of Tenancy
The first step available to the landlord is the issuance of a formal legal notice demanding payment of rent arrears and calling upon the tenant to comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement. Where the tenant continues to remain in default, the landlord may terminate the tenancy in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Further, Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 recognises the determination of a lease upon the occurrence of specified events, including breach of conditions contained in the tenancy arrangement.2 Persistent non-payment of rent may therefore provide a valid basis for termination of the tenancy.

2. Eviction Proceedings
Upon valid termination of the tenancy, the landlord may initiate eviction proceedings before the competent court or authority seeking recovery of possession. The tenant cannot lawfully

continue occupying the premises merely because the landlord is residing elsewhere or is temporarily unable to personally supervise the property.

The courts have consistently recognised that tenancy rights do not extinguish the tenant’s obligation to honour the terms of the lease. Continued occupation without payment of rent may therefore justify an order of eviction where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

Deposit of Rent During Pendency of Proceedings

During the pendency of an eviction or recovery suit, the landlord may seek directions requiring the tenant to deposit admitted rent before the court. Such orders prevent tenants from enjoying possession of the property without discharging their financial obligations.

However, the power to strike off a tenant’s defence for non-compliance is discretionary rather than automatic. In Bimal Chand Jain v Sri Gopal Agarwal , the Supreme Court held that such power is penal in nature and must be exercised judiciously. Similarly, in Santosh Mehta v Om Prakash , the Court described striking off a defence as a harsh measure that should be reserved for cases involving deliberate non-compliance and gross neglect.

More recently, in Dharmendra Kalra v Kulvinder Singh Bhatia , the Supreme Court reiterated that courts must determine whether the tenant’s default was wilful and deliberate before imposing such consequences.

Recovery of Arrears and Mesne Profits

The landlord may also seek recovery of unpaid rent that accumulated during the tenancy. In addition, once the tenancy has been lawfully terminated, the landlord may claim mesne profits for the period during which the tenant continues in unauthorized occupation of the premises.

Mesne profits are compensatory damages awarded for wrongful possession and are intended to compensate the owner for the loss suffered as a result of being deprived of lawful possession. The amount is determined by the court based upon the facts and circumstances of each case, including the market value of the use and occupation of the property.

Practical Recommendation

If advising the client, the recommended course of action would be the immediate issuance of a legal notice, followed by termination of the tenancy and institution of eviction and rent recovery proceedings if the default persists. Prompt legal intervention minimizes financial loss, preserves documentary evidence, and prevents the dispute from escalating into a prolonged possession conflict.

Preventive Measures

Several precautions could have reduced the likelihood of the dispute:
1. Executing a comprehensive written tenancy agreement clearly setting out payment obligations and default consequences.
2. Maintaining a substantial security deposit to mitigate temporary defaults.
3. Requiring all rent payments to be made through traceable banking channels.
4. Conducting periodic inspections through an authorized representative.
5. Granting a trusted family member or agent a power of attorney to manage property- related issues in the landlord’s absence.
6. Taking immediate action upon the first instance of rent default rather than allowing arrears to accumulate.

Lawyer’s Assessment

If this client approached the firm, the recommended course of action would be immediate issuance of a legal notice followed by initiation of eviction and rent recovery proceedings if the default persists. The landlord’s absence from the country does not diminish ownership rights or restrict access to legal remedies. Indian courts have consistently recognized that tenants can]not continue enjoying possession of property while refusing to fulfill their obligation to pay rent. Early legal intervention remains the most effective strategy for protecting the landlord’s interests and preventing the dispute from escalating further.