IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant is not entitled to protect his possession under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and is liable to suffer eviction based on landlord-tenant relationship, in the facts of the case.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-The suit premises forming part of the building No.25, 5th Cross, Annamma Temple Extension, Ramakrishnapuram, Bangalore, measuring 8 x 20 sq.ft. are the subject matter of these proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter the Act , for short) by the respondent claiming himself to be owner-landlord and seeking eviction of the appellant alleging him to be tenant in the suit premises. Eviction has been ordered under Clauses (a) and (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act by the Rent Controller and upheld by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 50(1) of the Act.

2. The singular issue surviving for decision at this stage and around which the learned counsel for the parties have centered their submissions is; whether the appellant is entitled to protect his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Properly Act, 1882 and hence not liable to suffer eviction based on landlord-tenant relationship which has ceased to exist on account of subsequent events.

3. The plea arises for determination in the background of the facts briefly stated hereinafter. The suit premises were initially owned by one N. Shamanna. The appellant was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant w.e.f. 1.11.1967. According to the appellant he entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property from the original owner in the year 1970, whereafter he has been holding the suit premises as a prospective vendor and in part performance of agreement to purchase the property, which relationship has superseded the erstwhile tenancy relationship and altered the nature and character of appellant s possession over the suit premises from that of tenant to that of a purchaser in possession in part performance of agreement to sell the property within the meaning of Section 53A of T.P. Act. The factum of there being any agreement to sell the property entered into by the original landlord with the appellant has been denied and has been a subject matter of controversy in these proceedings. What is not disputed is that under a deed of sale dated 18.4.1983 the original owner N. Shamanna and his wife Smt. Nanjamma have transferred their right, title and interest in the property, including the suit premises, to the respondent herein. These proceedings were initiated by the respondent herein after serving a notice on the appellant.

4. The controversy centering around the principal issue arising for decision in this appeal stands mellowed down to the extent of the findings arrived at in the judgment dated 1.9.1999 passed by VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. It was a suit instituted by the appellant herein against N. Shamanna - the original owner, Nanjamma - wife of the original owner and A. Sreenivasan, the present owner and the respondent herein (respectively impleaded as defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the suit) seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell of the year 1970 in his favour. The respondent herein was impleaded as subsequent transferee. The Trial Court held that though there was an agreement to sell in favour of the appellant, however, the suit filed by him was barred by limitation and also suffered from gross delay and laches. The respondent was held to be a transferee without notice of agreement in favour of the appellant, having purchased the property bona fide and for consideration. It was held that the appellant was not entitled to a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell in his favour nor, looking to his conduct, was he entitled to the alternative relief of refund of consideration with or without damages. One of the findings arrived at is that in spite of the alleged agreement to sell of the year 1970, the appellant had not disowned his character as tenant in the suit premises. There is no finding arrived at in the judgment that the appellant was in possession of the suit premises in part performance of t