The court ruled that a buyer's readiness to complete a property sale is essential; a price increase over time can invalidate specific performance claims if the buyer cannot prove their willingness.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioners being the respondents in HRC No.473/2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judge of Small Causes at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) have filed HRRP No.226/2008 seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.07.2008, passed by the Trial Court allowing the petition directing the respondents to vacate and put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule premises within two months from the date of order.

2. The appellant being the defendant in OS.No.6580/2006 on the file of the learned 17^th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court (CCH-16) Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') has preferred RFA No.1530/2011, impugning the judgment dated 05.08.2011 decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract directing the defendant to vacate the schedule premises, execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance consideration amount.

3. The schedule appended to plaint describes the property as the piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.157 and house list No.338/295 of Saneguruvanalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru boundaries on the East by property No.156, West by road, North by house No.261 and South by road, measuring East to West 24 feet, North to South 39 feet, with one square A.C.sheet roofed house having electric facility.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and he entered into an agreement to sell dated 24.12.2004 agreeing to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. An advance of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff at the time of entering into the agreement - Ex.P1 dated 24.12.2004 and the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within six months from the date of agreement. It is contended that the time was not the essence of contract. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance consideration amount and get the sale deed registered. But the defendant had not cleared the tax payable on the schedule property. He has also not delivered the vacant possession of the schedule property as agreed. The plaintiff paid an additional advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff on 25.03.2005. Inspite of that, the defendant has not executed the registered sale deed.

6. It is contended that the defendant has issued letter dated 25.05.2006 forfeiting the advance amount and also calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the premises by returning the documents. The plaintiff has issued a reply on 27.05.2006 informing the defendant that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and calling upon the defendant to furnish the original documents and to execute the sale deed. Defendant has issued a rejoinder as per Ex.P5 on 12.06.2006 insisting to vacate the premises and to pay the arrears of rent. The plaintiff has issued the reply