Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.D.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant and Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents-landlord/plaintiffs.

FACTS

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondents-plaintiffs have purchased a house No. B-35/42, Mohalla Sarai nandan, Ward-Bhelupur, City and district Varanasi by a registered sale-deed dated 28.8.2000. The said house was being occupied by the petitioner-defendant as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 240/- since the time of the erstwhile owner Sri Bulaki Sardar. The respondents-plaintiffs are occupying only one room on the ground-floor of the disputed house. They issued a notice to the petitioner-defendant for vacating the tenanted portion and to pay arrears of rent.

3. According to the respondents-plaintiffs, the said notice was not complied with by the petitioner-defendant and ultimately on 16.7.2004, they refused to vacate the tenanted portion. Therefore, in July,2004 the respondents-plaintiffs filed a release application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), which was registered as P.A. Case No. 38 of 2004. In the said P.A. case the petitioner-defendant took the stand that the erstwhile owner had executed an agreement to sale in favour of the petitioner-defendant on 2.4.1986 with respect to the disputed house, but the sale-deed was not executed and as such he has filed a suit for specific performance being Original Suit No. 166 of 2002 (Amrit Lal v. Rajesh) which is pending. He further took the stand that in view of the registered agreement to sale of the disputed house, the petitioner-defendant is not a tenant and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents-plaintiffs and the petitioner-defendant. The release application of the respondents-plaintiffs was allowed and the P.A. case was decreed by judgment and order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)(Court No. 2), Varanasi.

4. Aggrieved with these two judgements, the petitioner-defendant filed First Appeal No. 176 of 2010 (Amrit Lal v. Santosh Kumar and others), which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 9), Varanasi by the impugned judgment dated 20.4.2017.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid two judgments the petitioner-defendant has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER-DEFENDANTS/TENANT

6. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel submits as under :

(i) A registered agreement to sale of the disputed house was executed by the erstwhile owner in favour of the petitioner-defendant in the year 1986, but the sale-deed was not executed. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant filed a suit for specific performance in the year 2002, which is pending. Thus, the petitioner-defendant is not a tenant and there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the respondents-plaintiffs and the petitioner-defendant. Consequently, both the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Kanthimathi and others v. Mrs. Beatrice Xavier, AIR 2003 SC 4149 (Paras 6,7 and 8) and Arjunlal Bhatt Mall Gothani and others v. Girish Chandra Dutta and another, AIR 1973 SC 2256 (Paras 5 and 7).

(ii) On the date of execution of the aforesaid agreement to sale, the status of landlord and tenant changed into a new status as that of a purchaser and seller.

(iii) Under the circumstances, the petitioner-defendant has the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. All the conditions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were duly fulfilled. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant has the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, yet the Cour