D S PARVATHAMMA Vs. A SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit premises forming part of the building No. 25, 5th Cross, Annamma Temple Extension, Ramakrishnapuram, Bangalore, measuring 8 x 20 sq. ft. are the subject-matter of these proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act, for short) by the respondent claiming himself to be owner-landlord and seeking eviction of the appellant alleging him to be tenant in the suit premises. Eviction has been ordered under Clauses (a) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act by the Rent Controller and upheld by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 50(1) of the Act.

(2.) The singular issue surviving for decision at this stage and around which the learned Counsel for the parties have centered their submissions is : whether the appellant is entitled to protect his possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence not liable to suffer eviction based on landlord-tenant relationship which has ceased to exist on account of subsequent events.

(3.) The plea arises for determination in the background of the facts briefly stated hereinafter. The suit premises were initially owned by one N. Shamanna. The appellant was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant w.e.f. 1-11-1967. According to the appellant, he entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property from the original owner in the year 1970, whereafter he has been holding the suit premises as a prospective vendor and in part performance of agreement to purchase the property, which relationship has superseded the erstwhile tenancy relationship and altered the nature and character of appellants possession over the suit premises from that of tenant to that of a purchaser in possession in part performance of agreement to sell the property within the meaning of Section 53-A of T.P. Act. The factum of there being any agreement to sell the property entered into by the original landlord with the appellant has been denied and has been a subject-matter of controversy in these proceedings. What is not disputed is that under a deed of sale dated 18-4-1983 the original owner N. Shamanna and his wife Smt. Nanjamma have transferred their right, title and interest in the property, including the suit premises, to the respondent herein. These proceedings were initiated by the respondent herein after serving a notice on the appellant.