Entering into an agreement of sale does not absolve the tenant's liability to pay rent unless there is a specific recital to that effect in the agreement.

1. The petitioner is the tenant. Spondelytis The respondents filed R.CO.P.No.170 of 1993 to evict the petitioner on the ground of wilful default, since the petitioner is in arrears from January, 1993. The R.C.O.P. was filed on 29. 1993. Pending the R.C.O.P the respondents herein filed I.A. No.742 of 1994 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, stating that the petitioner is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.4,250 and unless he deposits the rent he cannot contest the eviction proceedings. By order dated 22. 1995 the Rent Controller allowed the said petition and directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent on or before 14. 1995. Since the said order had not been complied with, eviction was ordered in R.CO.P.No.170 of 1993. As against these orders, the petitioner preferred appeals in R.C.A. Nos. 45 and 46 of 1995. The Appellate Authority concurred with the order of Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals, by common order dated 22. 1997. As against the said order, the present revision have been filed.

2. The counsel for the petitioner contended that one of the respondents had entered into an agreement of sale, agreeing to sell the demised property to the petitioner and as such the petitioner did not liable to pay the rent and as such the orders of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside.

3. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is liable to pay the rent. The sale agreement entered into with one of the co-sharers will not absolve the tenant’s liability to pay the rent. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal immediately after the order was passed in the application filed under Section 11(4) of the said Act. He allowed the time to expire and the final order to be passed. Hence at this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the plea that he is not liable to pay the rent.

4. I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. The requirement of Section 11(4) of the said Act is very clear that when once the order, directing the tenant to pay or deposit the rent is passed, he is bound to pay the same. Otherwise, automatically he will be precluded from contesting the eviction petition. In that case, automatically eviction petition will be ordered. The only plea put forth by the petitioner is that in view of the sale agreement, he is not bound to pay the rent. Entering into an agreement of sale will not ipso facto terminates the relationship of landlord and tenant, unless there is specific recital to the effect in the sale agreement. Admittedly, in this case there is no such material placed before the authorities below or before this Court. Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable to comply with the order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 11(4) of the said Act.

5. It may be worthwhile to refer two judgments of this Court viz., Kuppulal v. Sagunthala , 1987 (I) MLJ 242 wherein it has been held as follows:-

“As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, mere agreement of sale will not terminate the landlord-tenant relationship and the liability of the tenant to continue to pay the rent, the tenant will have to continue to pay the rent, unless there are specific recital to the contrary in the agreement of sale. The judgment of Ramanujam, J. in S. Doraisami Nadar v. Nagammal , 1980 (93) LW 858 : 1981 (I) MLJ 35 : 1981 (I) RCJ 349 to the above effect relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would apply to the facts of this case. It, therefore, follows that the respondent, despite the alleged oral agreement of sale with one of the co-owners, even if it is found to be true, will still be under an obligation to pay the rent to the petitioners. Further, it is settled law that under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act the agreement has to be in writing and, even if there was one, mere agreement of sale does not transfe