HARVILAS Vs. KAILASH CHAND & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment & decree dated 26/11/2014 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Badi, District Dholpur by which, it has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant and upheld the judgment & decree dated 13/07/2011 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Badi, District Dholpur by which, it has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this civil second appeal are that plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the defendant-appellant in respect of a disputed shop. The defendant-appellant denied the contention in the plaint but court below has decreed the suit and appeal has also been dismissed.

(3.) In appeal, application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been submitted and decree for specific performance passed in favour of the appellant has been brought on record and contention of the appellant is that on 21/08/2003, an agreement to sell in respect of disputed property has been executed in favour of the appellant for a sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- has been received as advance to sale consideration and it has been agreed that a registered sale-deed would be executed on 30/09/2003 but plaintiff-respondents refused to execute the same. Civil suit has been filed in which, suit has been partially decreed only against Kailash Chand, respondent No.1. Appeal has been admitted and court was pleased to grant stay maintaining status quo as to the suit property and contention of the counsel for the appellant before this Court is that when by agreement to sell, property has been sold in favour of the appellant, possession of the appellant has been converted into as purchaser and the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases to exist in between the parties hence, plaintiff-respondents were not entitled to get decree of eviction.