Ravi Dutt v. Vinita

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 31, 2017 "gsr" ..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 31st July, 2017 + RC.REV. 219/2015 & CM No.8466/2015 (for stay) & CM No.3465/2017 (u/S 151 CPC) RAVI DUTT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Ankur Goel & Mr. Aman Dhyani, Advs. Versus VINITA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mohit Gupta & Ms. Alka, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order [dated 9th February, 2015 in E-394/2013 (Unique ID No.02401C0470712013) of the Court of Administrative Civil Judge (ACJ)-cum-Additional Rent Controller (ARC) (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner / tenant for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent / landlord for eviction of the petitioner / tenant from a shop in property No.8, Model Basti, Near Filmistan Cinema, New Delhi- 110005 and the consequent order of eviction. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued and execution of the eviction order stayed. Vide subsequent order, the continuance of the stay of the eviction order was made subject to payment by the petitioner / tenant to the respondent / landlord, instead of rent of Rs.25/- per month at which the petitioner was a tenant in the premises, a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. On review filed by the petitioner / tenant, the said amount was reduced to Rs.4,000/- per month. 3. The counsel for the petitioner / tenant at the outset states that it is inter alia the case of the petitioner / tenant that the respondent / landlord had agreed to sell the subject shop to the petitioner / tenant; that the petitioner / tenant had instituted a suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell and which suit was dismissed; that the petitioner / tenant had preferred an appeal and which appeal has been allowed by the ADJ by remanding the matter to the Civil Judge for hearing afresh. 4. The counsel for the petitioner / tenant thus seeks adjournment, awaiting fresh decision in the suit and contends that any finding / observation qua the agreement to sell, in this proceeding, will prejudice the claim of the petitioner / tenant in the suit. 5. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner / tenant the date of the agreement to sell and whether the same is registered. 6. The counsel for the petitioner / tenant states that the agreement to sell is of the year 2005 and unregistered. 7. In the light of the judgment of this Court in Jiwan Dass Rawal Vs. Narain Dass AIR 1981 Del 291 holding that an agreement purchaser has no right in the property agreed to be purchased, not only till when a decree for specific performance of the said agreement is passed but also till the conveyance deed in pursuance thereto is executed and which judgment has been consistently followed in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. (2014) 145 DRJ 148 (DB), Deewan Arora Vs. Tara Devi Sen (2009) 163 DLT 520, Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh (2010) 167 DLT 806, ASV Industry Vs. Surinder Mohan (2013) 137 DRJ 429 and for the reason of this Court in Sanjiv Pathak Vs. Som Nath (2013) 204 DLT 667, further holding that post the amendment in the year 2001 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the insertion of Section 17(1A) therein inter alia providing that there can be no delivery of possession in part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, without a registered Agreement to Sell, the petitioner, even if has agreed to purchase the premises in his tenancy, is not entitled to save his possession of the premises as a tenant and if has incurred a ground of eviction under the Rent Act and is liable to be evicted from the premises. The petitioner, if succeeds in the suit for specific performance, can, after conveyance deed is executed in his favour, recover possession also of the premises. Similarly the petit