Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—These two writ petitions and the second appeal relate to the same property. The parties are also common.

2. The second appeal has been nominated to this Court by Hon’ble Chief Justice’s order dated 31.8.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 12809 of 2003.

3. Since pleadings are complete, as agreed and requested by learned counsel for the parties, I have heard all these cases together and proceed to decide the same by this common judgment.

4. Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Advocate has appeared on behalf of petitioner as well as appellant, the same person, namely Mishri Lal Karak, Son of Shri Sito Karak (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner”). Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnil Kumar has put in appearance on behalf of Sri Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, respondent No. 3 in the second appeal and respondent No. 1 in both the writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as “respondent-landlord”).

5. The dispute relates to a house measuring about 200 sq. yards situated at Mohalla Azad Road, Chandausi. It was owned by Sri Kunj Bihari Lal and his wife Smt. Angoori Devi. The petitioner came to be inducted as tenant sometimes in 1991 and started paying rent to the then owners/landlords namely Kunj Bihari Lal and Angoori Devi. The petitioner claimed that an agreement to sell the disputed house was executed by the above co-owners with the petitioner on 29th March, 1992. A copy of the aforesaid agreement is on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition No. 34723 of 2010. The petitioner claimed that sale of the house was agreed on a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- out of which Rs. 35,000/- (Rs.10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-) was paid on or before the date of execution of the agreement dated 29.3.1992. Further, the petitioner was to pay Rs. 25,000/- by 15th June, 1992 and Rs. 50,000/- at the time of execution of sale-deed i.e. by 30th August, 1992. The agreement admittedly was not registered though so required under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1908”).

6. The erstwhile owners, however, executed a sale-deed, duly registered, on 6th August, 1993 in favour of Dinesh Chandra Agarwal son of Sri Ram Prasad Agarwal (the respondent-landlord) for a portion of disputed building i.e. about 48 sq. yards and for rest of the area, another sale-deed with the aforesaid respondent-landlord was executed on 26th August, 1994.

7. After execution of first sale-deed, the respondent-landlord filed an application dated 10th January, 1994 under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) for eviction of petitioner so as to demolish the building for its reconstruction. The aforesaid application was registered as Case No. 1 of 1994 before Prescribed Authority, Chandausi. Simultaneously, a notice was also given by respondent-landlord terminating his tenancy.

8. The petitioner contested the same by filing written statement dated 23rd January, 1995. He also filed an original suit No. 17 of 1995 (subsequently renumbered as O.S No. 719 of 2000) against Sri Kunj Bihari Lal and his wife Smt. Angoori Devi for specific performance.

9. It is an admitted case of the parties that Kunj Bihari Lal and his wife Angoori Devi did not contest the suit at all. On the contrary respondent-landlord filed a Small Cause Suit No. 7 of 1995 in the Small Cause Court seeking ejectment of petitioner from the disputed building, on the ground of Section 20(2)(a) of Act, 1972 i.e. default in payment of rent, having already received notice dated 10.1.1994 determining tenancy of the petitioner.

10. It is said that during pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed by petitioner before Prescribed Authority and vide order dated 14th August, 1996 he was permitted to carry out certain repairs in the disputed building. The said order of repair was challenged by respondent-landlord in Writ Petition No. 27692 of 1996 but the writ petitio