ORDER

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred feeling aggrieved by judgment and dated 06.09.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 119-A/2017 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Multai District Betul arising out of judgment and decree dated 10.07.2015 in Civil Suit No.1-

A/2014 by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Multai District Betul (M.P.).

2. The brief facts in nutshell before the Trial Court are that Ratnakar was the original owner of the disputed house of 600 sq. feet constructed on survey no.306/1 admeasuring area 0.006 hectare at village Dunawa, Tehsil Multai, District Betul. The original owner Ratnakar Hatekar agreed to sell the disputed house to appellant Rajendra on consideration of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.50,000/-

were paid in advance on date of agreement i.e. 21.10.2012. It was also agreed that the rest of the consideration amount shall be paid and the sale deed will be executed. After obtaining the fund for execution of sale deed and with rest of the amount when the plaintiff approached the original owner Ratnakar on

25.10.2012, the original defendant Ratnakar refused to execute the sale deed and the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract.

3. The defendants/respondents in reply denied the plaintiff's averment and filed a counter claim on the basis that in the suit house, plaintiff was residing as a tenant @Rs.200/- monthly and after August, 2009, he is not paying the rent. On 03.08.2012 when the defendant/house owner insisted and demanded the rent, the plaintiff assured that he will pay the rent and vacant the suit house but when the rent was not paid, the landlord submitted an application on 03.09.2012 before the Collector Betul, SDOP Multai and P.S. Multai. The Collector registered a case and ordered to SDOP to inquire the matter. The SDOP has not concluded the inquiry and on 18.11.2012, when plaintiff/defendant further went to demand the rent, the tenant made quarrel and on 19.11.2012 lodged a false complaint before the Police Station. The defendant has replied the notice sent by the plaintiff. By the counter claim, the legal heirs of deceased owner sought relief for arrears of rent and vacant the possession of the suit house.

4. Trial Court framed the issued and after recording the evidence of the parties, concluded that on 21.10.2012, the original owner of the house agreed to sell the rented premises on consideration amount of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.50,000/- were paid in advance and also found proof that the plaintiff was a tenant of original respondent @200/- per month and the rent was not paid after August, 2009 and decreed the counter claim and also admitted the part of the suit and ordered that adjusting the arrears of rent directed the defendants to return the rest of the amount of advance pay in pursuance of the contract and also directed the plaintiff to handover the vacant possession of the suit house to the defendants.

5. Being aggrieved with the judgment, the appeal was filed by the defendant. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and concluded that there was no agreement to sale and advance amount of consideration was not paid. Thus, all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were rejected and the counter claim of the defendant was allowed. It was directed to plaintiff to handover the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the owner and paid Rs.7,200/- as arrears of rent.

6. Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the Trial Court after considering the evidence has clearly concluded that there was agreement to sale but the suit was dismissed only on the ground that the oral agreement cannot be executed as being barred by law as agreement to sale is required compulsorily registration. The same error has been committed, the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court has reversed the decree of the Trial Court.

7. Lear