CWP No.18609 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18609 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2011 Jhirmal Singh and another ... Petitioners Versus Roshan Lal and others ... Respondents II CWP No.18541 of 1991 (O&M) Jhirmal Singh ... Petitioner Versus Roshan Lal and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Vijaypal, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, for the petitioners. None for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Harish Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.4. None for respondents No.5 to 9. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.10 to 13. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. Two petitions for eviction by the heirs of the original land-owner from whom the petitioner in CWP No.18541 of 1991 and he along with his brother in CWP No.18609 of 1991 admittedly took the possession as tenants, were filed on the ground that tenants-respondents had been in default of payment of rent that afforded a ground for ejectment under the Punjab CWP No.18609 of 1991 (O&M) [2] Security of Land Tenures Act. The action was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that their father had orally agreed to sell the property and also collected all the consideration for the same. The reference shall hereafter be to the petitioner in CWP No.18541 of 1991. His contention was that he was no longer a tenant and since the entire consideration for the sale had been paid, he was in possession of the property as a person holding an equable rights to purchase. The three sons that inherited the property on the death of the owner, two of them persisted in their action for ejectment while one son took sides with tenant and he conceded that his father had agreed to sell the property and he was willing to sell his share of the property. Accordingly, he entered into an agreement to sell the property on 22.04.1988 recording an acknowledgment that his father had already orally agreement to sell the property in lieu of batai and that he received the entire balance of consideration and would sell the property at any time when the petitioner demanded to purchase. The other two sons, who filed the petition did not concede for the alleged oral agreement of sale by their father. The first authority, who dealt with the petition, dismissed the petition holding that admittedly the petitioner had not paid the rent and, therefore, was liable for ejectment. The appellate authority confirmed the same. The revisional authority took the same view and having lost in all the Forums, the petitioners are before this Court challenging these orders. 2. I find that there is no merit at all in the writ petitions. An action for ejectment by owner or a person claiming as an owner, cannot be defeated by a tenant or an erstwhile tenant by merely putting an agreement of purchase. In this case, the agreement was purported to be oral and the petitioners had no more proof than a recital in agreement written by one of the sons of the CWP No.18609 of 1991 (O&M) [3] original owner. If the other two sons, who had filed the petition for ejectment did not accept that there was an agreement executed by their father, then the matter was only an issue of a right of entitlement to obtain an ejectment unfettered by a claim by the tenant that there was an agreement of sale. There is sufficient authority for the proposition that a suit for ejectment by landlord, cannot be defeated by a tenant claiming an equable right to purchase so long as the alleged agreement did not fructify into sale. The duty of the tenant shall be to surrender the possession back and if, he has a subsisting right under agreement, it could be enforced independently in the manner known to law namely by a specific performance of the agreement in a competent Court of jurisdiction. This right cannot avail at all times, since the Limitation Act prescribes through Article 53 that the period of limitation is three years from the date when the time for performance is made or when there is no time for performance from the date when the demand is made and when it is refused. In this case, if the petitioner's contention was that he could purchase the property at any time he wanted, after the death of the father when the petition was filed by the landlords claiming as as to the owner, the petitioner was bound to take notice of the denial of the right by the respondents and must have taken steps to demand an enforcement. The petition had been filed before the authorities under the Act in the year 1988 and such a claim cannot survive against two of the sons at least. Even, an agreement of sale from one of the sons could have given to the petitioner a right to purchase the property but he shall not hold back possession of the whole property. He is bound to surrender the property of law and could work out his right of a partition, if he obtains a sale deed from anyone of the sons and claim the property to the extent to which he becomes owner subsequently. CWP No.18609 of 1991 (O&M) [4] 3. The orders passed for eviction are perfectly tenable and the writ petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly, the same are dismissed. JULY 25, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE