ABDUL GAFFAR Vs. N K SIDIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent-landlord filed the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for own occupation. The tenant denied both the grounds contending that the landlord is not the owner of the premises and that the building belongs to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board. The Rent controller found that the landlord was not the owner and that, in view of the agreement of sale between the parties, the landlord cannot maintain the eviction petition. On appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction and hence the revision by the tenant.

(2.) It is common ground that the building in question belongs to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board and it was allotted to the respondent-landlord in the year 1960. Thereafter, the landlord appears to have entered into an agreement of sale with the tenant's wife, who undertook to pay the instalments due to the Housing Board and also the property tax. The landlord also appears to have received some amount from the woman in consideration of the agreement of sale Ex. P-6 is the agreement of sale dated 1-6-1973 entered into between P. W. 1 and Shamshed Begum wife of R. W. 1 the tenant. Now disputes have arisen between the landlord and the intending purchaser, and the former had filed the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for own occupation. These facts are not in dispute.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant argued that by virtue of the agreement of sale the landlord has ceased to be the owner of the premises and therefore, he cannot file the petition for eviction. The Appellate Authority rightly rejected this plea and held that the petitioner tenant was inducted into possession only by virtue of a tenancy agreement and that the subsequent agreement of sale is immaterial for the purpose of this case. It cannot be disputed that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board continues to be the owner of the building and the landlord has to clear the instalments dues to the Housing Board before he becomes the full owner. In other words, full title to the property does not pass to the landlord unless he pays the entire amount due to the Housing Board as per the contract. Therefore, the landlord who was put in possession of the building cannot sell the same to a third party without the consent or the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, which is the paramount owner. Therefore, the agreement of sale in favour of the wife of the tenant is yet to be enforced in accordance with law and a mere agreement will not entitle the intending purchaser to become the owner of the property, especially when the property itself is mortgaged to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for due payment of instalments. The fact that the petitioner tenant has paid some instalments on behalf of the landlord will not clothe him with the rights of ownership of the building as against the allottee-landlord. In any event, that is a matter between the parties to the agreement of sale who have to work out their rights in a civil suit. The allottee landlord is certainly entitled to collect rent from the tenant who entered possession of the property by virtue of a tenancy agreement and not under the agreement of sale.