After expiry of the period of lease contract of sale of leased land.

This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether it is open to a person, against whom proceedings have been instituted for eviction under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, to raise a plea based upon section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act for resisting the application.

The 1st respondent herein is the owner of lands which were let to the petitioners by a lease deed, dated 19th November, 1952. The term in the lease deed was for a period of two years and it expired on 18th November, 1954. The annual rent agreed upon was a sum of Rs. 166. The Assistant Collector, Hosur, against whose order this revision petitions is filed, entertained an application for eviction at the instance of the respondent on 2nd July, 1957. The allegation made in the petition by the landlord 1st respondent was that the 1st petitioner had fallen into arrears in the matter of payment of rent since November, 1954. Some amounts had been admittedly paid upto 25th September, 1956; but it was not disputed that on the date of the application for eviction there were arrears of rent payable by the petitioners.

The defence set up by the tenant 1st petitioner was that some time after the expiry of the lease-period, that is to say in May, 1955 (the date 24th May, 1958) given by the Assistant Collector in his order being incorrect), a registered agreement was entered into between the parties, namely, the first respondent to the application for eviction and the landlord the petitioner therein, whereby the landlord agreed to sell leased properties to the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs. 800 to be paid within an agreed date. It is not disputed that consideration passed for this agreement and the landlord did not dispute the execution of this agreement. It is further admitted that, within the date fixed for execution of the sale deed, the petitioner, in whose favour the agreement of sale was executed, had tendered the balance of price due to the landlord, who improperly refused to accept the amount and execute the sale-deed. It is also a common ground that the period of limitation for enforcing the contract by specific performance had not expired either on the date when the application for eviction was preferred or on the date when it was ordered.

The contention put forward before the Assistant Collector was that, after the execution of the registered agreement for conveyance of the property, the 1st petitioner no longer remained in possession as tenant and therefore the application for eviction was not maintainable. The Assistant Collector rejected this argument on the ground that the registered agreement for conveyance did not create an interest in the lands which entitled the petitioner to remain in possession. He further held that he continued to be tenant of the property, even though the term of the lease had expired and it was not competent for him to resist the application for eviction on the ground that he had acquired a new right for possession of the property under the agreement for conveyance.

It may be mentioned that the lands which are the subject of dispute originally belonged to the petitioner, who had sold them to the landlord some time before, or almost contemporaneously with, the date when the lesse deed in favour of the petitioners was executed. Shortly after the order for eviction was passed by the Assistant Collector a suit for specific performance had been instituted by the 1st petitioner for getting a conveyance of the suit lands from the 1st respondent.

T. V. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two points. First, he argued that section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to the facts of this case and would clothe the petitioner with the right to remain in possession and to resist the application for eviction brought at the instance of the landlord. According to him, if a civil suit for eviction had been brought against the petitioner and he could resist such