Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to avoid the decree of arrears of rent and eviction passed by the Small Causes Court on 20.7.1984 by assailing the order dated 16.11.2013 dismissing his objections under Section 47 C.P.C. and the order dated 15.1.2014 dismissing the revision arising therefrom.

2. The dispute is in connection with house No. 120, Mohalla Chaudharana, Fatehpur. It was the property of one Smt. Mithana Devi, widow of late Babu Lal. The petitioner was tenant of the same. It was purchased by the respondents from Mithana Devi, vide registered sale-deed dated 24.5.1982.

On the strength of the above sale-deed claiming themselves to be the owners and the landlords the respondents instituted SCC suit No. 7 of 1984 against the petitioner for arrears of rent and eviction. The suit was decreed ex parte on 20.7.1984.

The petitioner applied for setting aside the above ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The application was allowed on 19.1.1985 but the said order was set aside on 28.5.1985 in revision preferred by the respondents.

3. The petitioner challenged the revisional order by means of writ petition No. 8524 of 1985 and the same was dismissed on 21.7.2005 holding that the decree cannot be set aside for non compliance of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter after referred to as the Act). The Court dismissing the writ petition in view of the contention of the petitioner that the previous owner Smt. Mithana Devi had executed an agreement to sell on 26.2.1976 in his favour, left the question of title to be decided in a civil suit with the observation that the findings of the SCC suit would not operate as res judicata therein. At the same time, the petitioner was granted time till 31.3.2006 to vacate the house by depositing the entire amount as decreed with the Court below.

In the net result, the ex parte decree dated 20.7.1984 passed in SCC suit No. 7 of 1984 for arrears of rent and eviction became final and conclusive between the parties.

The respondents applied for the execution of decree vide execution case No. 3 of 2007. In the execution, petitioner preferred objections under Section 47 C.P.C. contending that the decree is nullity and is not liable to be executed. The objections registered as Misc. Case No. 99/74 of 2008 have been dismissed and so is the revision therefrom.

The above two orders are the subject-matter of challenge in this petition.

4. I have heard Sri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lokendra Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents both of whom agreed for the disposal of the writ petition at the very outset as only a legal aspect divorced of any factual dispute, is involved in the petition.

5. The submission of Sri Singh is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell dated 16.2.1976 so as to purchase the house from the previous owner Smt. Mithana Devi and therefore, his status in the said house has ceased to be that of a tenant. The decree of eviction passed against him treating him to be a tenant as such is a nullity and cannot be executed.

6. Sri Rahul Mishra, has opposed the above argument by contending that the suit has been decided on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant. The agreement to sell is unregistered and has been set up belatedly to sabotage the decree.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that Smt. Mithana Devi was the previous owner and landlord of the house in question. She had transferred it in favour of the respondents by registered sale-deed on 24.5.1982. She died on 24.10.1983.

The petitioner, a tenant in the said house is only claiming rights therein on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 16.2.1976.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in unequivocal terms provide that a contract of sale by itself would not create any interest or charge on the propert