A transferee who has been inducted into possession pursuant to a contract of transfer, even if the transfer is not completed in the manner prescribed by law, is protected from being evicted by the transferor or any person claiming under him, subject to the proviso that the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract.

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1. It arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for eviction of defendant No. 1 from the property mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint. There was a prayer for the removal of the structures raised by defendant No. 1 on the land in dispute. The plaintiff had claimed damages and compensation also.

2. The plaintiffs case, in short, was as folows: The land in dispute measuring 2 kathas 10 dhurs originally belonged to pro forma defendant No. 2. The land had been let out to defendant No. 1 as a monthly tenant for temporary residential purposes. Defendant No. 2 had sold the land to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated the 10th October 1953. According to the plaintiff defendant No. 1 was, therefore, in possession of the land in dispute as a monthly tenant under the plaintiff. The plaintiff having required the land for his own use, had served a notice upon defendant No. 1 to deliver possession to the plaintiff after removing the structures standing on the land in dispute. Defendant No. 1 not having complied with the notice, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 alone. The defence, in substance, was as follows. According to this defendant, the land in suit had been permanently settled with her by defendant No. 2 by virtue of a Patta dated the 8th June 1936, on receipt of a premium of Rs. 500.00 and at an annual rent of Rs. 2/2/-. Under the document of settlement, the defendant was given the right to use the land for residential purposes, and the defendant had, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the land in dispute and was continuing in possession by payment of rent. The defendant, therefore, contended that she was not liable to eviction.

The defendants further case was that after taking the settlement mentioned above, she had got her name mutated in the Jugselai Notified Area Committee in place of defendant No. 2, and she was paying municipal tax since the settlement. The defendant had applied to the Notified Area Committee for sanctioning the plan of certain structures, but she had not been able to construct the entire structure on account of paucity of funds. She had, however, constructed a building which was being used by her. The plaintiffs case that he was entitled to evict the defendant by service of notice was denied. Substantially upon these allegations, defendant No. 1 contended that the plaintiffs suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit decreed the same and directed defendant No. 1 to remove the structures from the land in suit within fifteen days from the date of the decree, and deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff. It was ordered that the amount of damages which the plaintiff could recover, would have to be ascertained in a separate proceeding on the plaintiffs taking proper steps in that connection.

5. Defendant No. 1 thereafter carried an appeal to the court of appeal below. The learned Additional Subordinate judge, who heard the appeal, dismissed the appeal affirming the decree passed by the learned Munsif. Defendant No. 1 has come up to this court,

6. The substantial point that has been urged in this court was covered by the first issue framed in the suit which runs thus:-

-

"Is the defendant a permanent tenant of the suit land or is she a monthly tenant of the same and is she liable to be evicted therefrom?

It was urged on behalf of defendant No. 1 in the court of the learned Munsif that she was protected from eviction by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Munsif stated as one of the points for decision thus:

Whether the plaintiff was estopped from evicting defendant No. 1 by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

The facts upon which the provisions of Sec. 53A were invoked are these. The document dated the 8th of