IMPORTANT POINT
An unregistered agreement to sell does not terminate the landlord-tenant relationship unless explicitly stated, and cannot be used to influence substantive rights under the Indian Registration Act.

JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist/ tenant, Sri C.K. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri H.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents/landlord.

2. The revisionist-tenant has assailed the judgment and order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Ghaziabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 34 of 2012 (Mohan Chand Tiwari Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta), whereby the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondents/ landlord for eviction of the revisionist/tenant.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents/landlord instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 34 of 2012 for eviction of the revisionist/tenant. The suit has been instituted on the ground that the respondent/landlord is the owner of House No. 194/10 situated at Model Town, Ghaziabad. The house described above was purchased by Smt. Raj Kumari from one Suresh Chandra Sharma by a registered sale deed dated 22.7.1996. After the death of Smt. Raj Kumari, the respondent/landlord became the owner of the aforesaid house. The respondents/landlord rented out three rooms on the first floor (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') of house No. 194/10 at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from 1.1.2011. In this respect, a rent deed was also executed on 22.1.2011 for 11 months. The revisionist/tenant paid Rs.5,000/- as surety money. According to the plaint case, the tenancy of the revisionist/tenant used to begin on the 1st day of every month and end on the 30th day of every month.

4. It is further pleaded that the respondents/landlord and revisionist/tenant entered into an agreement to sell on 25.7.2011 in respect to the suit property for a sum of Rs.56,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Six Lacs). Under the aforesaid agreement, the revisionist/tenant paid Rs. 51,000/- by cash and Rs. 49,000/- by cheque to respondent no.1 as earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid by 7.9.2011 or within one month. However, on further negotiations, the period of payment of the balance sale consideration was extended up till 5.12.2011. It was also agreed between them that in case the balance sale consideration was not paid by 5.12.2011, the alleged agreement to sell would stand cancelled. It is further stated that the revisionist/tenant did not pay the balance sale consideration till 5.12.2011, consequently, the agreement to sell dated 25.7.2011 stood cancelled.

5. Further plaint case is that the revisionist/tenant instituted Original Suit No. 149 of 2012 against the respondents/landlord. It is pleaded in the plaint that it was also agreed between the parties that until the sale deed is executed with respect to the suit property, the revisionist/tenant shall continue to pay the rent of the suit property. It is further stated that since there was default in the payment of rent, therefore, the tenancy of the revisionist/tenant was terminated by a notice dated 8.6.2012.

6. The aforesaid suit was contested by the revisionist/tenant by filing the written statement contending, inter alia, that since admittedly in the present case, an agreement to sell had been executed between the parties, therefore, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ceased to exist. Thus, the revisionist/tenant ceased to be the tenant of the suit property. Therefore, the suit for eviction before the Small Causes Court would not be maintainable.

7. The respondents/landlord filed replication 21-Ga to the written statement denying the fact that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ceased to exist, inasmuch it was agreed between the parties that the revisionist/tenant shall continue to pay the rent of the suit property till the execution of the sale-deed.

8. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as six issues, which read as under:

9. On issue nos. 1 and 2, the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record recorded a finding that the revisionist/tenant failed to prove that th