JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1) The present Special Leave Petition calls in question the judgment dated 01.04.2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.280/2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the revision application of the petitioner and upheld the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court which affirmed the order of the Small Causes Court whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate and handover the suit premises to the respondents’ predecessor – Jainbi Mushtaq Shaikh.

2) For the proper disposal of the Special Leave Petition, the parties are being referred by their position in Civil Suit No.384/2010.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts lay thus: the respondents’ predecessor - Jainbi Mushtaq Shaikh owned a shop on the ground floor of the building admeasuring 200 sq.ft bearing House No.3031, S.No.51, Mitha Nagar, in front of Vishwakarma Building, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune¹[Hereinafter referred to as the “Suit premises”]. Admittedly, the suit premises was let to the petitioner/defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/-. While the tenancy was subsisting, the original plaintiff agreed to sell the suit premises to the petitioner/defendant, consequently, this culminated into an agreement to sell dated 21.09.2004. Pursuant to the stipulations laid in the agreement to sell, the petitioner/defendant paid Rs.40,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs.1,90,000/- and the residual consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid within three months.

4) As per the original plaintiff’s assertion, the petitioner/defendant failed to comply with the stipulations inhering from the agreement to sell, leading to non-fruition of the sale. As a corollary, the petitioner/defendant continued as a tenant in the suit premises.

5) Subsequently, the original plaintiff alleging default of rent by the petitioner/defendant, change in the use of the suit premises, coupled with an express bona fide need, filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No.384/2010 seeking possession of the suit premises. The petitioner/defendant resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the landlord-tenant relationship ended upon the execution of the agreement to sell. Further, it was pled by the petitioner/defendant that he paid Rs.90,000/- out of the total consideration and was ready to pay the balance consideration to the original plaintiff.

6) The Small Causes Court after examination of oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 19.09.2015, upheld the bona fide requirement of the original plaintiff and held that the landlord and tenant relation subsisted even after the execution of the agreement to sell. Predicating upon the aforesaid reasoning, the suit was decreed in favour of the original plaintiff, and the petitioner/defendant was directed to handover the possession of the suit premises. The petitioner/defendant’s appeal challenging the Small Causes Court’s decision was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.11.2023.

7) Being aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant filed Civil Revision Application No.280/2024 challenging the decisions of the Small Causes Court and the First Appellate Court. The High Court vide the impugned judgement and order dated 01.04.2026 dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner/defendant.

8) Taking exception to the judgement passed by the High Court, the petitioner/defendant is now seeking refuge of this Court in reversing the concurrent findings rendered.

ANALYSIS

9) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and perused the material on record.

10) The question inhering from the present lis is whether on the execution of the agreement to sell by the landlord in favour of the tenant, upon receiving part consideration, the inter se relationship of landlord-tenant ceases and fresh rights and obligations flow from the agreement to sell.

11) Contending in affirmative to the question posed, the learned counsel for the petitioner/d