A sale agreement’s unregistered status does not negate prior landlord-tenant relationships unless expressly stated; implied surrender can determine tenancy cessation.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

1. These Review Applications are filed seeking to review the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4224 and 4225 of 2018.

2. The main Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of Rent Control proceedings. The review applicant/ landlady filed petitions for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also for fixation of fair rent. Both the petitions filed by the review applicant were dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the review applicant preferred two Rent Control Appeals and the same were partly allowed by setting aside the findings of the Rent Controller with regard to the jural relationship. However, the appellate authority confirmed the dismissal of the eviction petition. The appeal filed against the dismissal of fair rent petition was allowed by fixing fair rent at the rate of Rs.61,850/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the main revision petitions were filed by the respondent.

3. This Court, by the order sought to be reviewed, held that there was no jural relationship between the parties and consequently, allowed the Civil Revision Petitions.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant in support of his prayer for review raised the following points:

i) The learned counsel by taking this Court to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C)No.16073 of 2022 submitted that while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, challenging the decree for specific performance, the Hon’ble Apex Court permitted the SLP petitioner to work out his remedies in regard to the alleged arrears of rent due from the respondent herein in accordance with law. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and only as a consequence liberty was granted to the SLP petitioner to work out his remedies with regard to the alleged arrears of rent.

ii) The learned counsel submitted that the sale agreement relied on by the respondent herein was unregistered one and hence, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding extinguishment of jural relationship.

iii) The learned counsel further submitted that there is no express provision in the sale agreement absolving the respondent from paying rent to the review applicant and therefore, under Section 111 of “The Transfer of Property Act, 1882” (hereinafter referred to as “TP Act” for the sake of convenience) determination of lease cannot be presumed.

5. The Special Leave Petition referred by the learned counsel for the review applicant was filed challenging the decree obtained by the respondent / revision petitioner for specific performance of sale agreement. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:

“After hearing learned senior counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the decree directing specific performance. We are of the view that the respondent should pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs only) more. Accordingly, we modify the impugned decree by directing that the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.3 lakhs more within a period of one month from today in the trial Court. We further leave it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in regard to the alleged arrears of rent due from the respondent in accordance with law.”

6. A perusal of the above said order would indicate that t