INDER KUMAR JOHAR Vs. KAILASH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Inder Kumar Johar (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana dated 16-10-1996 and that of the Appellate Authority. Ludhiana dated 9-8-1997. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. The short question agitated has been as to whether when there is an agreement of sale between the landlord and the tenant, in that event, Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would come to the rescue of the petitioner-tenant or not?

(2.) Some of the relevant facts are that respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner alleging that he is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- P.M. including the house tax if levied. The petitioner is stated to be in arrears of rent from 1-1-1989. The petition for eviction was contested. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties alleging that the respondent has already entered with the petitioner into an agreement of sale deed dated 17-9-1991. The respondent has failed to execute the sale deed. She could not produce her title deeds. The petitioner is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The rent is stated to be Rs. 110/- P.M. besides house tax.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues. It was held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further that arrears of rent claimed were due. The tender of rent made by the petitioner was stated to be short because the findings returned were that agreed rent was Rs. 600/- P.M. An order of eviction was passed. Before the Appellate Authority, the question agitated was that petitioner was in possession of the suit premises in part performance of the contract of sale. Therefore, he could not be evicted from the suit property. As such, the Appellate Authority rejected the said contention holding that the agreement of sale clearly stipulates that petitioner is a tenant in the property and possession as owner shall be given only at the time of sale. As yet no sale deed has been executed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the present revision petition has been filed.