9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the agreement for purchase of the house in dispute. 2. Notice served by the respondents for arrears of rent and eviction. 3. Contention regarding the plaintiffs' entitlement to recover rent and eject the defendant. 4. Application of Section 4-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 5. Invocation of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. Interpretation of Section 91 of the Indian Trusts Act. 7. Consideration of equities in favor of the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. The defendant entered into an agreement to purchase a house from its owner but later, other parties purchased the same house with prior knowledge of the agreement. The defendant was then served with notices for arrears of rent and eviction by the new purchasers, leading to conflicting claims over the property. 2. The defendant argued that the new purchasers were not entitled to recover rent or eject him as they were aware of his prior agreement with the original owner. The defendant contended that he had offered to pay rent under protest, but the plaintiffs did not accept, raising questions about the validity of the eviction suit. 3. The trial court found that the plaintiffs were aware of the prior agreement between the defendant and the original owner, but still decreed the suit for ejectment based on non-payment of rent. The court also assessed the genuine requirement of the premises by the plaintiffs for their business. 4. On appeal, it was held that the defendant failed to establish a defense under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and could not rely on it since he remained in possession as a tenant even after the alleged agreement for sale. The court emphasized that the defendant's possession was not in part performance of the contract. 5. The court also discussed the application of Section 91 of the Indian Trusts Act, stating that a subsequent purchaser with notice of an existing contract must hold the property for the benefit of the prior agreement holder until a final decision is reached. However, it clarified that the defendant's possession as a tenant could not be altered solely based on the agreement for sale. 6. The judgment highlighted that until the defendant succeeded in the specific performance suit, he could not enforce equities against the plaintiffs, especially as his possession remained that of a tenant and not in part performance of the contract. The court emphasized the need for a final decision in the specific performance suit to determine the rights over the property. 7. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the defendant could not enforce his rights until the specific performance suit was successful, and his possession as a tenant did not grant him the authority to resist eviction based on the agreement for sale.
|
