Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The landlord-petitioners filed a revision petition against an order passed by the Appellate Authority, which reversed an eviction order originally passed by the Rent Controller. The core dispute centered on whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties. The respondent, alleged tenant, claimed that although he was inducted as a tenant by Radhey Shyam (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners), Radhey Shyam had subsequently entered into an agreement to sell the property to the respondent dated 21.07.2001, transferring all rights in his favor. The Rent Controller disregarded this agreement on the ground that no registered sale deed existed. However, the Appellate Authority found that Radhey Shyam was not the owner of the premises and the possession held by the respondent was in part performance of the agreement to sell under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The present revision petition challenges this finding.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the agreement to sell, despite not being registered, confers any rights on the respondent with respect to the property.
  2. Whether possession of the respondent can be protected as part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
  3. Whether the landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties given the agreement to sell and the transfer of possession.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The agreement to sell was not registered and therefore does not create any right in the property.
  • No suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell has been filed by the respondent.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Radhey Shyam had inducted the respondent as a tenant but later transferred all rights through an agreement to sell dated 21.07.2001.
  • The possession of the respondent is as a purchaser under the agreement to sell and protected as part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
  • Full payment under the agreement to sell was made and all rights were transferred, pending permanent allotment in favor of Radhey Shyam.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognized that while an unregistered agreement to sell does not itself create title, it does create a right in the property. The Court noted that the respondent had made full payment and all rights were transferred under the agreement, awaiting permanent allotment to Radhey Shyam. The Court applied Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which protects possession of an intended purchaser who fulfills certain conditions, including part performance of the agreement to sell. The Rent Controller’s disregard of the agreement due to lack of registration was countered by the Appellate Authority’s finding that Radhey Shyam was not the owner and the respondent’s possession was protected under Section 53-A. The Court found no ground to interfere with the Appellate Authority's decision and dismissed the revision petition.

Holding and Implications

The Civil Revision petition is dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the Appellate Authority’s order reversing the eviction and recognizing the respondent’s possession as protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. No new precedent was established by this ruling.

    Padma And Another v. Ramesh Chand .

    Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral):—

    CM No. 22978-CII of 2017

    1. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

    2. Application is allowed.

    Main Case

    3. Landlord-petitioners are in the revision petition against the order passed by learned Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

    4. Dispute which requires adjudication is whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. The alleged tenant-respondent has asserted that no doubt Radhey Shyam, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had inducted him as a tenant but thereafter Radhey Shyam entered into an agreement to sell for full payment dated 21.07.2001 with him and transferred all the rights in his favour. It was clearly written in the agreement to sell that possession of the respondent is now as a purchaser. Learned Rent Controller ignored the aforesaid document on the ground that no sale-deed has been registered. However, Appellate Authority after re-appreciating the evidence has found that even Radhey Shyam himself was not the owner of the premises and therefore it was agreed that if any other property is allotted to Radhey Shyam, respondent would be entitled to get the sale-deed for the alternative premises. Appellate Authority has further noticed that possession of the respondent is in part performance of the agreement to sell referable to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

    5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once agreement to sell is not registered, it does not create any right in the property. He further submitted that specific performance of agreement to sell has never been sought for.

    6. No doubt agreement to sell does not create any right in the property but it certainly creates a right to the property. Here is a case where full payment of agreement to sell has been executed and all rights have been transferred, waiting for permanent allotment in favour of Radhey Shyam. Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, provides that any intended purchaser is entitled to protect his possession provided he fulfils the conditions laid down in the aforesaid provision. In the present case whatever steps were to be taken by the respondent he had already taken those steps. It is not in dispute that till date Radhey Shyam has not been allotted this property permanently.

    7. In view of above, there is no ground to interfere.

    8. Civil Revision is dismissed.

    9. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are disposed of in terms thereof.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Padma And Another v. Ramesh Chand .
    (Oct 11, 2018)