ROOP SINGH NAGAR Vs. SUJATA KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision is directed against the order of the appellate authority, Faridabad dated 6.3.1991 allowing the appeal of the respondent against the order of Rent Controller, Faridabad dated 25.8.1990. The respondent had filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from plot No. 208, Sector 24, Faridabad on the ground that they were in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3500/- since May, 1986 till the filing of the petition for a period of 5 months and that they had ceased to occupy the promises as it had been lying closed for the last more than one year. The petitioners, however, refuted the claim of the respondent. It was claimed that they had entered into an agreement with the power of attorney of the respondent for sale of the plot on 9.11.1985 for a consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/-, It was further claimed that in pursuance of the said agreement a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been paid as earnest money and part payment of the sale price on the same day and further a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid through her general power of attorney on 20.12.1985. It was, therefore, claimed that the relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end and the petitioners were in possession of the premises since 9.11.1985 as owners in pursuance of the agreement to sell. It was also pleaded by the petitioners that they had filed a suit for specific performance of contract which was pending in the Civil Court but their dispossession had been stayed by the Court. The trial Court did not accept the contention of the petitioners that they had become the owners of the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell. Their claim that they had become owners by virtue of the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was negatived on the ground that no transfer of interest in the immovable property takes place on mere execution of an agreement to sell and as such the petitioners could not claim that the relationship of landlord and tenant qua the respondent had stood terminated. The trial Court, however, referred to some earlier litigation between the parties wherein an ejectment order had been claimed to have been passed against the petitioners and on that basis held that the moment the ejectment order had been so passed, the tenancy had come to an end and the rights of the parties under contractual tenancy had merged into that order. Thus, on this ground it was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had been terminated.

(2.) IN appeal filed by the respondent the findings of the Rent Controller that mere execution of an agreement to sell did not transfer any rights in property was upheld. However, the finding of the trial Court that an earlier ejectment order has been passed and, therefore, the tenancy stood terminated was reversed on the ground that there was nothing in the petition or in the written statement suggesting that any execution was pending with regard to such an eviction petition. It was observed that from the mere statement of the respondent that previously also litigation was going on with the respondent and that the proceedings regarding taking possession from the petitioners were pending no inference could be drawn that there was any eviction order passed earlier. The lower appellate Court, therefore, held that in the absence of any such order produced before it, it could not be that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had ceased to exist.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the respondent, I find no merit in this revision petition. The proposition of that mere execution of an agreement to sell does not transfer any title is by now well established. The matter stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Joginder Kaur's case (supra). It may also be mentioned here that it is not the case of the petitioners that they had been put in possession in pursuance of the agreement of sell. Regarding the issue about the earlier eviction order the findings of the lower appellate Court deserve to be upheld. The petitioner had failed to place any such order before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was nothing in the petition or in the written statement suggesting that any ejectment petition had been filed previously or any ejectment order had been passed or that any execution proceeding was pending with regard to such an eviction petition. It had been correctly observed that no such inference could be drawn from the statement of the respondent who had merely stated that the previously also litigation had been going on with the petitioners and that proceedings regarding taking possession from the petitioners were pending. At any rate as the petitioners have failed to file the alleged earlier eviction order and in the face of the categorical denial of existence of such an order by the respondent, no fault can be found with the findings of the lower-appellate Court that there is no material on record to show that the eviction order had been passed earlier also which had resulted in the cessation of relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties.