2010 (1) TMI 1257 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application u/s 10 of CPC for stay of ejectment proceedings.
2. Consolidation of suits for ejectment and specific performance.
3. Legal rights arising from an agreement to sell.
4. Jurisdiction to stay eviction pending a suit for specific performance.
5. Relationship of landlord and tenant.

Summary:

1. Application u/s 10 of CPC for stay of ejectment proceedings:
The petitioner/defendant filed an application u/s 10 of CPC to stay the ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondents/plaintiffs, arguing that a prior suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the same property was pending. The Additional District Judge dismissed the application, stating that the matters in the two suits were different and that the court handling the specific performance suit had not stayed the ejectment proceedings.

2. Consolidation of suits for ejectment and specific performance:
The petitioner/defendant sought consolidation of the suits by transferring the ejectment suit to the court handling the specific performance suit. The court found this request to be inequitable, as it would delay the ejectment suit, which could be resolved more quickly in its current court.

3. Legal rights arising from an agreement to sell:
The court held that a mere agreement to sell does not create any right to occupy the property. Even if the petitioner/defendant succeeds in the specific performance suit, he would not have the right to remain in possession until a conveyance deed is executed. The court cited Jiwan Das Vs. Narain Das, stating that no rights enure to the agreement purchaser until the conveyance is executed.

4. Jurisdiction to stay eviction pending a suit for specific performance:
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to stay eviction proceedings lies with the court handling the specific performance suit, not the court handling the ejectment suit. The court referenced judgments from various High Courts, including Lachaman Nepak Vs. Badankayalu Syama Babu Subudhi and Jai Singh Rana Vs. Mohinder Mohan Goel, which supported this principle.

5. Relationship of landlord and tenant:
The petitioner/defendant argued that the landlord-tenant relationship ended on 8th July 2004 due to an oral agreement. The court rejected this argument, stating that the alleged agreement was not registered as required by law. Therefore, the tenancy was validly terminated by the notice dated 22nd July 2004.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the stay on the ejectment proceedings was vacated. The court directed the Additional District Judge to dispose of the ejectment suit expeditiously. The observations made in this judgment were not to prejudice the specific performance suit.