The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of a tenant's possession cannot be automatically changed to that of a proposed vendee without surrendering possession to the landlord.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2017 and 29.08.2017 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Khurda in R.F.A. No.23 of 2016.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellant being the aggrieved Defendant, under section 96 of the Code, has been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2016 and 18.03.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Banpur in Civil Suit No.20 of 2013 have been confirmed.

The Respondent, as the Plaintiff, has filed the Suit for eviction of the Appellant (Defendant) from the suit shop and premises for realization of rent etc and that being decreed, the Appellant (Defendant) has been directed to give vacant delivery of possession of the suit shop and premises and pay the arrear rent with interest @ 6% per annum till 30.04.2013 and damage @ Rs.100/-per day with effect from 01.05.2013 till vacation.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff’s case is that he is the owner of the suit land over which the shop room stands and the Defendant had been inducted therein as a monthly tenant and was running a furniture store being its proprietor. It is stated that the tenancy being renewed with effect from 01.01.2012, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1100/-, payable on the last day of each English calendar month and the period was to end on 30.11.2012. An agreement had come into being on 01.01.2012. It is stated that the Defendant paid a sum of Rs.3000/-as the security money and after expiry of the period of tenancy, the Defendant continued to occupy the suit shop room and premises by paying the rent to the Plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement. It is stated that the rent was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff till the month of April, 2013. The Defendant then, as promised, did not vacate the suit shop and premises and rather stopped paying the rent from May, 2013 onwards. So, the Plaintiff terminated the tenancy by issuing notice in consonance with the provision under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, ‘the T.P. Act’) to the Defendant demanding him to vacate the suit shop and premises. The notice was sent by registered post with AD on 22.07.2013 and thereby the Plaintiff demanded vacant possession of the suit shop and premises on expiry of the period allowed therein and pay the rent. It is stated that the Defendant, having acknowledged the receipt, sent a reply on 22.08.2013 in accepting his position/status as tenant till April, 2013. It is stated therein that he is possessing the suit land from 01.05.2013 pursuant to an agreement for sale executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant whereunder the Defendant had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-as advance consideration out of the agreed consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-for the purpose of sale of the suit shop and premises. It is stated that for that reason, the Defendant is not liable to vacate the suit shop and premises and pay the rent any more.

4. The Defendant, in his written statement, has admitted the ownership of the Plaintiff and his mother over the suit shop and premises as well as the factum of tenancy. It has been specifically pleaded that there was an oral agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant for continuance of the tenancy in respect of the suit shop and premises from 01.12.2012 till end of April, 2013 on payment of rent. It is stated that on 01.05.2013, the Plaintiff offered the Defendant to purchase the suit shop and premises. The Defendant having agreed the consideration for the said sale was fixed at Rs.2,50,000/-. It is next stated that the Defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-towards advance consideration to the Plaintiff in presence of witnesse