9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (12) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56 from Babulal for a Sum of ₹ 6000/- under a registered deed. The defendant was at the time of the sale occupying a shop forming part of the said house on a rent of ₹ 12/-/- p.m. On 26-5-1956 the present respondents served a registered notice on the defendant demanding arrears of rent from 7-4-1956. This notice was followed by another dated 9-7-1956 terminating the defendant's tenancy with effect from the 7th of September, 1956 or in the alternative from 10-9-1956. This notice also contained a demand for the arrears of rent. The defendant thereupon filed a suit against the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title Babulal for specific performance of the contract dated 9-3-1956 with Babulal for the purchase of the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty Act, and that he could not invoke the aid of that section, since he was in possession of the suit accommodation even after the alleged un-registered contract of sale dated the 9th of March, 1956 with Babulal as his tenant. It was further held by the lower appellate Court that the provisions of Section 91 could be availed of by the present appellant only when he won in the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. Till such, a sale-deed is executed, in consequence of the decree in the suit for specific performance, by the subsequent purchaser in favour of the present appellant, the latter cannot, on the strength of the prior agreement acquire any title to the property agreed to be sold. Reliance was placed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iffs notices and also having asserted that he had no right to recover any rent from him must be deemed to have made default in payment of the arrears of rent. I have already shown above that his plea in this behalf as taken in the written-statement is not consistent with his own statement on oath. I would, therefore, hold that the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent nor offered to pay the same as rent prior or subsequent to the receipt by him of the plaintiff's notices. On the other question raised before me, I am of the opinion that the defendant did not in his written-statement state the facts necessary to make out a case of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 53A of the Transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into possession as a tenant and continued to remain in possession in that capacity the defendant cannot, in my opinion, be heard to say that by reason of the agreement to sell his possession is no longer that of a tenant. 8. In this view of the matter the case in Ghasiram v. Shankarlal, AIR 1960 Madh Pra 3, can have no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the only question which arose for consideration was whether the two mortgages executed after the agreement to sell would bind the person in whose favour the agreement to sell had been executed. No question arises in the present case whether the sale effected in favour of the plaintiff is binding on the present appellant. That is a matter yet to be decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
