The judgment establishes the importance of scrutinizing the bona fides of a tenant's denial of title and emphasizes the landlord's entitlement to eviction for own occupation.

1. Tenant in HR.C.O.P. 110 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner herein.

2. Scheduled premises originally belonged to one Balamirutham under whom petitioner became tenant. Balamirutham executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter Rohini @ Usha and thereafter lease deed was also executed in favour of Rohini @ Usha as evidenced by Ex. R4 dated 11.4.1984. While the tenancy was subsisting, landlord herein purchased the schedule premises from Rohini @ Usha as per Exs. P5 and P6 dated 11.12.1992 and 14.12.1992 respectively for valid consideration. It is also the case of landlord that tenant was not paying rent for some time and landlord herein paid entire rent arrears to Rohini who in turn executed Ex. P7 deed dated 14.12.1992 and conveyed the right to realise the same and also future rent from the tenant. It is the further case that tenant attorned tenancy in favour of landlord by paying monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter he committed wilful default. Landlord sent a notice demanding rent arrears and also wanted to get vacant possession for his own occupation. According to landlord, he is doing business in Motor oil Lubricants in the rented premises and landlord of that premises asked him to vacate that building and he is in dire need to occupy the scheduled premises. When tenant refused to vacate the premises which he has expressed in his reply, present application was filed for eviction.

3. In the Counter statement filed by the tenant, he said that he has entered into a lease agreement with Rohini under Ex. R.4 but subsequently previous owner Balamirutham asked tenant to pay rent to her and he was paying the same without default. He further said that on 24.4.1989 as evidenced by Ex. Rl, he has entered into an agreement with Rohini to purchase the premises for Rs. 1,40,000/-and paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/-. It is the further case that as per that agreement, there is a provision not to pay rent thereafter and he was allowed to continue in possession on the basis of the agreement and consequently he is entitled to protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act. According to him, after agreement came into force, he is not liable to pay rent and he has not paid rent to landlord at any point of time. The time is not essence of the contract as per agreement for sale, and his possession is only as per agreement of sale and not as tenant. He also denied the grounds of eviction.

4. On the basis of above allegations, Rent Controller raised issues as to whether denial of title is bona fide and directed landlord to pay additional court fee for the same.

5. As per order dated 3.10.1997, Rent Controller found that denial of title is bona fide and dismissed the application. The ground of eviction was not considered in view of this finding. Rent Controller was of the view that genuineness or otherwise of Ex. P5 is not to be agitated in Rent Control proceedings and that is the matter Civil Court alone will decide. Rent Controller held that tenant has made out prima facie case on the basis of Ex. Rl and existence of document coupled with the evidence of RW2 shows that the denial of title is bona fide.

6. Against the dismissal of Rent Control petition, Landlord filed M.A. 9 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge. Appellate authority reconsidered the entire evidence and took a contrary view. It held that Ex. Rl is not valid document and even evidence of RW2 will not prove that the document was executed by Rohiniamml @ Usha, who has specifically denied execution. Appellate Authority further held taking into consideration the common course of human conduct that even though alleged agreement is in 1989, till date, tenant has not taken any steps to have the agreement enforced. Appellate authority also held that mere existence of agreement will not put an end to rental arrangement and insertion of certain sentences in the alleged agreement for sale show that it was pr