Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These rent control revisions filed under Section 20 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965), hereinafter called 'the Act', are against a common judgment by which the Appellate Authority has dismissed appeals filed under Section 18 of that Act challenging interlocutory orders by which the Rent Control Court refused to adjudicate an issue sought to be raised by the tenants as if there is a bona fide denial of title of the landlord. They, therefore, attempted to press into service Section 11(1) of the Act. That did not find favour with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority. Hence, these revisions.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the findings of the courts below are not sustainable and that the orders are vitiated by illegality, irregularity and impropriety, though they are concurrent. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord/respondent argued that the plea attempting to deny the title of the landlord itself was not bona fide.

3. The trump card plea of the tenants is that they had a contract of sale in their favour and, therefore, the landlord's right does not continue to be what it was as between the landlord and the tenants. It is submitted that, as of now, the suit for specific performance of that contract of sale is pending trial. Suffice it for us to say, that it is trite law that a contract of sale does not create any interest in immovable property. Nor does a decree or order under the Specific Relief Act directing specific performance of a contract of sale by itself amount to create an interest in immovable property either by way of charge or otherwise. It is trite law that even such a decree or order has to undergo the process of execution or enforcement through the competent court, resulting in transfer of property, either voluntarily or by intervention of court. It is only then that the transferee under the contract of sale can claim that the said contract has got transformed into a real right in the property. This is the law. That being so, we are unable to conceive that merely because a tenant in possession obtains a contract of sale, there could be any transmutation of the rights and the characteristics of parties for a court to assume that the possession of a building tenant under Act 2 of 1965 should be treated as one who has been put to be in continuing possession in part performance of the contract of sale. We do not see that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in R.Kanthimathi & another v. Beatrice Xavier [2000(9) SCC 339], has stated to the contrary because, on facts of that case, the entire consideration was paid, and, that decision cannot be applied as a precedent in law on the facts of this case as that decision was rendered on the peculiar facts of that case. The plea of the revision petitioners, therefore, fails.

4. Be that as it may, one thing is certain. Even if the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority has made any observation regarding the rival title of the parties in the order and judgment impugned in these revisions, the jurisdictional civil court would try any suit for specific performance and decide any such matter untrammelled by anything stated in those order and judgment. This is also the clear effect of the law.

In the result, these revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.