A suit for specific performance must be filed within three years of the date fixed for performance or the date of notice of refusal. Initiation of recovery or eviction proceedings by the owner serves as clear notice of refusal, triggering the limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. This suit is instituted by the Plaintiff seeking decree of specific performance against the Defendant for performance of his part of the obligation under Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 10.08.2006 (‘ATS’) inter alia by executing and getting registered the Sale Deed and all other transfer documents in respect of property bearing No. A-14, First Floor, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi (‘suit property’) as also for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from transferring/alienating the suit property or creating any third party rights therein.

2. Case set out by the Plaintiff in the plaint is that Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit property comprising of the entire first floor, garage block and half portion of terrace over first floor along with servant quarter and offered to lease the same to the Plaintiff. Consequently, an unregistered Lease Deed dated 14.09.2005 was executed between the parties for three years commencing from 14.09.2005 at a monthly rate of Rs. 30,000/- besides other charges. During subsistence of the lease, Defendant offered to sell the property to the Plaintiff as he was in possession as a tenant. Plaintiff was informed that the entire property was originally leased by Government of India to his father Late Shri Gyan Singh Vohra, who had in turn executed a registered Will dated 18.10.1993 and bequeathed the suit property to the Defendant.

3. It is stated in the plaint that believing that the Defendant was genuinely interested in selling the suit property, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and an ATS was executed between the parties on 10.08.2006 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was paid by the Plaintiff as earnest money. Defendant was required to execute and register a Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff on receiving balance consideration within 8 months of the execution of the ATS. Original Lease Deed was handed over to the Plaintiff since tenancy had ceased and it was agreed that no rent shall be paid since property was purchased by the Plaintiff and earnest money had been paid. Defendant also executed a Possession Letter in favour of the Plaintiff and admittedly, after execution of ATS no rent was paid.

4. It is stated that when Plaintiff received summons of the suit filed by the Defendant before District Judge, Saket Courts for possession, recovery of rent and damages, it was realised that Defendant had concealed the factum of execution of the ATS as also payment of part sale consideration in the said suit and had misrepresented that Plaintiff was a tenant. It is also stated that under the ATS, balance sale consideration was payable by 10.04.2007 and during this period, Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had on several occasions called upon the Defendant and his attorney Shri K.J.S. Chowdhry to execute the Sale Deed, however, each time Defendant expressed his inability to do so, owing to family disputes. The very fact that Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to continue in possession was indicative of the fact that Defendant had agreed to sell the property under the ATS. Plaintiff was, however, at a receiving end since on one hand part consideration had been paid to the Defen