Landlord is not executing the sale deed of tenanted premises and filed a suit for eviction. He has taken 75% sale consideration in advance and extended the deadline for execution of sale on two occasions. His daughter's marriage was fixed therefore, he wanted to extend the time for the execution of the sale deed. Actually the landlord demanded a 10% sale amount as an earnest money. When I paid that amount then again he contacted me and demanded some more sale consideration because he needed money for the marriage of his daughter. Then I transferred seventy lakh rupees in his bank account through NEFT. After getting seventy five percent of the sale amount he solemnised his daughter's marriage.
After one month of marriage ceremony he served a notice to vacate the premises on the ground of non payment of rent for more than ten months. Actually it was decided that I will not pay rent after giving earnest money. Then I stopped paying rent. He is in contact with another buyer so he wanted to kick me out and go with him. He filed an eviction suit, in that suit I admitted that I have been his tenant since February 2016. On this very ground the court decided the case and totally overlooked that there is an agreement to sell and 75% sale consideration has been paid to the landlord.
Asked from: Gujarat
In the said civil suit, you should have filed a counterclaim seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell. The landlord had entered into an agreement to sell the tenanted premises and had already received approximately 75% of the sale consideration. Consequently, he became legally bound to execute the sale deed in your favour.
It appears that the trial court primarily based its judgment on the admission made by the defendant (tenant) in the written statement, wherein the tenant acknowledged his legal status as a tenant and failed to submit any proof of payment of rent for the past ten months. On this basis, the court invoked Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the court to pronounce judgment based on admission.
While it is true that a court may decree a suit based on a clear admission made by the defendant, it is equally important to note that this provision is discretionary, not mandatory. The trial court is obligated to examine all relevant circumstances and ensure that justice is not denied merely due to procedural admissions.
In your case, there is sufficient documentary evidence to establish that:
- The landlord entered into an agreement to sell the tenanted property,
- He received 75% of the total sale consideration in advance, and
- He sought extensions for the execution of the sale deed on two separate occasions.
These facts strongly suggest that the current suit for eviction was filed with the intent to frustrate your legal rights as the proposed purchaser of the property and to circumvent the agreement to sell.
Therefore, you are advised to file an appeal challenging the judgment of the trial court. In the appeal, you should specifically raise the following grounds:
- That the trial court erroneously invoked Order XII Rule 6 CPC based solely on admission of tenancy status, without appreciating the existence of a binding agreement to sell.
- That the matter involved disputed questions of fact and required a full trial with evidentiary evaluation.
- That the judgment failed to consider the bonafide contractual rights arising out of the agreement to sell and was passed on misappreciation or non-consideration of material facts.
Given the facts and the legal position, the appeal has strong merit and a high probability of success, as the trial court appears to have improperly exercised discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The trial court has completely overlooked the fact that the landlord is not executing the sale deed of tenanted premises after receiving substantial part of consideration in advance from the tenant.
Related:
