JAYA P HEMARAJANI Vs. ROSE ELVINA D SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were two suits, one for specific performance of contract by The purchaser and the other for ejectment and arrears of rent by the landlady. The purchaser was the tenant and the vendor was the landlady. The suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed, but the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed Accordingly both the appeals are by one and the same person, but in different capacities of purchaser and the tenant. Similarly the respondent in one appeal is also the respondent in the other appeal, but in different capacities of vendor and the landlady. In this state of affairs and for the sake of convenience, the appellant in both the appeals shall hereafter be also described as the "purchaser-tenant" or as the 'tenant-purchaser"; and the respondent in the two appeals shall be described as the "vendor-landlady" or as the "landlady-vendor".

(2.) The suit property is a double storeyed house. It was and is owned by the respondent in both the appeals. The first floor of the house was given on rent to the appellant in the two appeals for the purpose of residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 670.00 with effect from 1-12-1978. The tenancy was from the 1st to the last day of each English Calendar month and the rent was payable on the 1st day of each succeeding tenancy month. Rents till June, 1980 were paid, but rents thereafter were not paid, though the appellant in the two appeals continued and continues to be in possession of the first floor of the house till the date of this judgment. This is the factual position in so far as the tenancy agreement between the parties is concerned.

(3.) On 21-2-1980 the respondent In the two appeals entered into an agreement to sell the entire suit property with the appellant in the appeals for a consideration of Rs. 2,40,000.00subject to terms and conditions, which were reduced into writing in the form of