The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the doctrine of part performance under S. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act and the requirement of a written contract, possession or continuation of possession, and performance or willingness to perform by the transferee.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 2nd septr. , 1978 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, bangalore City, in RA No. 70 of 1976, on his file, dismissing the appeal, on confirming the judgment and decree dt. 25 2-1976 passed by the II Addl. I Munsiff, Bangalore, in OS No. 697 of 1970 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff partly.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 1,170.

( 3 ) ACCORDING of the plaintiff, house no. 2, near Baadi Reddy Circle, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampura, Bangalore, was leased to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 130. The tenancy commences ob the 1st of calendar month. The defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent of rs. 1,170 which became due towards rent up to 8-10 1967 and, in spite of demand notice dt. 29-10-1967, the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent. On 5-2-1968, he paid Rs. 700. That was received without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. On giving credit to that amount, the plaintiff instituted the suit for the recovery of balance, along with Rs. 15 towards notice charges.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant by filing his written statement. He contended that he was not a tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 130. He was living in the suit house as owner on reconveyance agreement executed by the plaintiff in his favour on 9-7-1965 for a sum of Rs 6,500. He had spent for repairs of the building. According to him, the property originally belonged to one kannayappa Reddy. He had agreed to purchase the house from him. Since kannayappa Reddy, in spite of notice issued to him, did not produce before him title deeds, he could not purchase it. Kannayappa Reddy sold the property to the present plaintiff with the consent of the defendant and, in turn, the plaintiff executed an agreement to reconvey the property in favour of the defendant. He had spent Rs. 5,420-20 p. to start a hotel in the suit property, towards furniture and renovation, besides paying corporation tax. Lastly, he contended that the relationship between them was that of buyer and seller or creditor and debtor but not of landlord and tenant. The suit was also barred by limitation. Hence, he prayed that the suit be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE trial Court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings, x x x

( 6 ) APPRECIATING the evidence on record, the trial Court held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It further held that the defendant was entitled to deduction of Rs. 287 05 p. paid by him towards property tax and in that view, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 4,097-95 p. with proportionate costs and current interest at 6% per annum.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree, defendant went up in appeal before the Pri. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in ra No. 70 of 1976, on his file. The learned Civil Judge, in the course of his judgment, raised the following points for his consideration, in the appeal:1) Whether the finding of the Court below that the appellant-defendant is a tenant of the respondent-plaintiff in respect of the suit premises is correct ? 2) Whether the plaintiff has established that he is not liable to pay rent on account of tenancy rights having merged into the agreement of sale at Ex. D1 as contended before this Court ? 3) To what relief, the appellant is entitled.

( 8 ) THE learned Civil Judge, re-assessing the evidence on record in the light of the arguments addressed before him, found in the affirmative under point No. 1 and in the negative under point No. 2. In that view, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal of the defendant, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree, defendant has instituted the above second appeal before this Court.

( 10 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before me that the Courts below were