Ownership cannot be claimed through mere agreement for sale pending legal resolution; status as tenant continues unless a decree is established.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

INDEX

(1) The Challenge

(2) Submissions by the petitioner

(3) Submissions by the respondents

(4) Analysis, Discussions & Findings

(5) Analysis, Discussions & Findings:

The challenge:-

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”) by which the appeal submitted by the petitioner’s father (now deceased) against the judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) has been rejected.

2. By passing the judgment dated 25.02.2020, the Tribunal has allowed the application submitted by the respondents/landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”) under Sections 6 and 9 of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) and an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) to vacate the subject premises and pay the revised rent to the respondents.

Submissions by the petitioner :-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there exist no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties initially and the owner of the subject premises was one Kutubudin who let out the premises to Ramgopal Sharma, i.e., father of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide family settlement, the premises came in the share of one Shafi Mohammed, who executed an agreement for sale of the subject premises in favour of the petitioner on 31.12.1999. Counsel submits that when the registered sale deed of the subject premises was executed by the said Shafi Mohammed, the petitioner submitted a suit for specific performance of agreement before the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar, however, the said suit was rejected vide judgment dated 01.05.2019, against which S.B. Civil First Appeal No.467/2019 was submitted before this Court by the petitioner, wherein this Court vide interim order dated 20.11.2019 directed that “In the meanwhile, property shall not be alienated during the pendency of the appeal”.

4. Counsel submits that appeal is continuation of the suit and until the appeal is not decided, the application submitted by the respondents was not maintainable. Counsel submits that all these objections were taken by the petitioner in his reply, but the same were not considered and the impugned eviction order has been passed against the petitioner, against which an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal and during pendency of the said appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was submitted by the petitioner for taking the sale agreement on the record. The said application was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 05.04.2021 and the document was allowed to be exhibited. Counsel submits that a criminal case was lodged by the respondents against the petitioner with the allegation that the agreement was forged and fabricated, however, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rank-1, Sikar vide order dated 06.10.2023. Therefore, under these circumstances, one more application was submitted by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for taking the order of acquittal on record. Counsel submits that the said application was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal along-with the impugned judgment whereby the appeal submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected. Counsel submits that one more application under Order