Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 35

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J
Pawan Kumar Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Sinha – Respondent
S.A. No. 72 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Kr. Gupta, Parth Jalan
For the Respondents: Shashank Shekhar

An unregistered agreement to sell, by itself, does not terminate a pre-existing landlord-tenant relationship or convey title. Unless the agreement contains specific stipulations terminating the tenancy, the obligation to pay rent continues, and the occupant remains susceptible to eviction under rent control laws.

Headnote:(A) Bihar Building (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act - Eviction from residential premises - Default in payment of rent and personal necessity - Whether unregistered agreement to sell property extinguishes existing landlord-tenant relationship - Held, mere entry into an agreement to sell does not, by itself, terminate the tenancy or character of possession unless specifically indicated by terms of the contract - Absence of such evidence maintains the legal status of the parties as landlord and tenant. (Paras 2, 8, 31, 33)

(B) Transfer of Property Act - Section 53A - Part performance of contract - Unregistered agreement to sell - Inadmissibility of such document to create interest or title in immovable property or to displace existing status of tenant - Conveyance of title requires a registered deed - Protection under Section 53A is unavailable where the legal status is governed by a subsisting tenancy and the primary requirements of registration are not met. (Paras 24, 29, 32)

(C) Evidence - Admissibility and Burden of Proof - Findings of concurrent courts regarding necessity - Appellate courts are generally restricted from interfering with factual findings of landlord’s bonafide requirement when supported by material evidence. (Paras 35)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-tenant faced an eviction suit on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's personal necessity. The tenant claimed that a Memorandum of Understanding and a subsequent (unregistered) agreement to sell the property transformed their occupancy from that of a tenant to a prospective purchaser, thereby ending the liability to pay rent. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the eviction, finding both the default in rent and the requirement of the premises for personal use proven, while rejecting the impact of the unregistered agreement.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the existence of an agreement to sell does not inherently terminate a tenancy unless the agreement explicitly provides for such cessation. The courts below concurrently found that the relationship remained valid and that the personal necessity of the landlord was genuine.

Issues: (i) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in refusing to consider an unregistered agreement to sell as sufficient to extinguish a tenancy. (ii) Whether the tenant ceased to be a tenant upon entering into an agreement to sell the premises.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered agreement to sell does not confer title nor does it automatically extinguish the pre-existing landlord-tenant relationship. Without a specific clause indicating the intent to terminate the tenancy, the status of the occupant remains that of a tenant, rendering them liable for eviction under the relevant rent control legislation upon proof of default or personal necessity.

Result: Judgment reserved.

Table of Content
1. factual history and origin of the eviction dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. appellant's stance on agreement-based cessation of tenancy. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. allegations of lower courts failing to interpret agreements correctly. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. respondent's defense against unregistered sale agreement impact. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. rejoinder arguments regarding tenancy status and final reservation. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

15/07.01.2026

1. This 2^nd appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.02.2025 (decree signed on 29.02.2025) passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.18 of 2018 affirming the judgment and decree both signed on 29.11.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-X, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 09 of 2009.

2. The suit for eviction was filed under the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the BBC Act”) on ground of default in payment of rent and also on account of personal necessity. The suit was decreed on both the grounds and the appeal has been dismissed. Consequently, the defendant is the appellant before this Court.

3. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 10.09.2025 by framing substantial question which was slightly modified vide order dated 06.01.2026. Consequently, this 2^nd appeal is to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court while confirming the judgment was justified in refusing to consider Exhibit-E (the agreement of sale dated 30.10.2008) on the ground that it was an un-registered agreement?

(ii) Whether the appellant ceased to be a tenant after the agreement of sale dated 30.10.2008?”

4. It is not in dispute during the course of argument that the defendant was inducted as a tenant sometimes in the year 2001-02 and was in possession of the suit property. The suit for eviction was filed on ground of default in payment of rent and also on account of personal necessity.

5. As per the defendant, one Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred as MOU) dated 03.09.2007 was entered into between the parties whereby the landlord agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs.35 lakhs, out of which Rs.1 lac was paid by cheque and upon encashment of the cheque, the MOU was followed by an agreement of sale dated 30.10.2008 and payment of Rs.4 lacs as a part of the consideration amount. As per the defendant, the rent was paid till September, 2007 i.e. till the month of MOU and subsequently, the defendant stopped making payment of rent.

6. So far as the plaintiff is concerned, it was their case that the defendant had paid rent till December, 2003 and the plaint neither disclosed about the MOU nor disclosed about the agreement of sale and the defendant contended at the time of evidence that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1 lakh paid through cheque was adjusted against the arrears of rent till December 2003 and the defendant did not pay rent from January, 2004.

7. Further, it transpires that as per the plaint, the rent was Rs.15,000/- per month and as per the written statement the rent was Rs.3,500/- per month.

8. Both the learned counsel during the course of arguments have found that, there is no findings of the learned courts with regard to the date of default in payment of rent and further there is no finding as to what was the quantum of rent fixed with respect to the tenancy. However, initial tenancy is not in dispute. Learned counsels have also submitted that the case has been decided primarily on the ground that defendant admittedly stopped making payment of rent from September, 2007 and therefore, non-payment of rent by the defendant stood admitted on record at least beyond September, 2007.

Arguments of the appellant

9. It has been submitted by learned counse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 35

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDAnubha Rawat Choudhary, JPawan Kumar Jaiswal – AppellantVersusKrishna Sinha – RespondentS.A. No. 72 of 2025

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J
Pawan Kumar Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Sinha – Respondent
S.A. No. 72 of 2025