Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Pawan Kumar Jaiswal, S/o late Rajendra Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Krishna Sinha, W/o late Satendra Kumar Sinha
S.A. No. 72 of 2025
Decided On : 06-04.2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate

An unregistered agreement for the sale of property is inadmissible to prove part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act but may be considered for collateral purposes to determine the nature of the relationship between parties, provided the document does not manifest a clear intent to terminate existing tenancy.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A - Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 and 49 - Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act - Eviction suit based on default in payment of rent and personal necessity - Agreement to sell being unregistered cannot be used to invoke doctrine of part performance under Section 53A as it is compulsorily registrable - (Paras 25, 26, 32, 33)

(B) Evidence - Collateral use of unregistered documents - An unregistered agreement to sell can be looked into for collateral purposes, such as determining the true nature of the relationship between parties, even if it cannot prove part performance for protection under Section 53A - (Paras 40, 42, 43, 44, 53)

(C) Relationship of landlord and tenant - Termination - Mere execution of an agreement to sell does not automatically terminate the pre-existing status of landlord and tenant unless such intent is clearly manifested in the terms of the agreement read with the conduct of the parties - (Paras 50, 51)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and bonafide personal necessity. The appellant denied the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting it had transitioned into a buyer-seller relationship by virtue of an unregistered agreement to sell. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit for eviction, finding the relationship of landlord and tenant persisted.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the unregistered agreement to sell, while inadmissible for claiming protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, is admissible for collateral purposes. Upon examination of the terms, it was determined that the parties never intended to sever the landlord-tenant relationship permanently. Furthermore, the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the ground of bonafide personal necessity remained unchallenged and sufficient to uphold the decree of eviction.

Issues: The main issues were whether an unregistered agreement of sale could be considered in an eviction proceeding and whether its existence altered the legal status of the occupant from a tenant to a purchaser.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered agreement of sale is ineligible for part performance under Section 53A but may be admitted for collateral purposes to ascertain the nature of possession. However, in the absence of explicit terms terminating the tenancy, the legal status remains that of a landlord and tenant, sustaining the eviction decree.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of second appeal and framing of substantial questions of law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. historical factual background of tenancy, agreement of sale, and trial outcome. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. analysis of the first appellate court regarding admissibility of unregistered agreement. (Para 9)
4. contentions of parties regarding landlord-tenant relationship and legal validity of documents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court identification of key factual disputes and substantial questions for determination. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. statutory necessity of registration for section 53a transfer of property act claims. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. unregistered agreement of sale can be used for collateral purposes regarding relationship status. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
8. assessment of whether agreement of sale implies surrender of existing landlord-tenant status. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
9. final synthesis of findings, confirming eviction based on tenancy and personal necessity. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

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.10 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. Case of plaintiff As per the case of the plaintiff, the husband of the plaintiff, had inducted the defendant as tenant over the suit property as back as on 15.01.2001 and her husband expired on 10.03.2009. Thereafter, the suit was filed alleging that the monthly rent was Rs.15,000/- and the defendant was habitual defaulter in payment of rent and paid the rent only up to December 2003 and thereafter, in spite of repeated requests, neither paid rent nor validly tendered the same by taking advantage of ill health of her husband Satendra Kumar Sinha. The plaintiff sent legal notice to the defendant on 23.10.2009 under registered cover and thereafter the suit for eviction was filed on account of default in rent and personal necessity.

5. Case of defendant The defendant contested the suit denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted that the defendant was inducted as monthly tenant by husband of the plaintiff since 15.01.2001 at rent of Rs. 3,500/- per month and her husband entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.09.2007 intending to sell the suit property for Rs.35 lakh and an advance of Rs. 1 lakh by cheque dated 08.10.2007 was issued in the name of Ajit Kumar Sinha, the Power of Attorney holder of Satendra Kumar Sinha (husband of the plaintiff) under the instruction of Satendra Kumar Sinha. Upon encashment of the cheque, Satendra Kumar Sinha entered into an agreement with the defendant on 30.10.2008 incorporating the terms and conditions of the agreement.

As per the agreement also, Rs.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.Pawan Kumar Jaiswal, S/o late Rajendra Chaudhary - AppellantVersusSmt. Krishna Sinha, W/o late Satendra Kumar SinhaS.A. No. 72 of 2025Decided On : 06-04.2026

Cases Referred (12)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Pawan Kumar Jaiswal, S/o late Rajendra Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Krishna Sinha, W/o late Satendra Kumar Sinha
S.A. No. 72 of 2025
Decided On : 06-04.2026