2025:JHHC:10152 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 21 of 2022 1. Md. Khurshid Alam, aged about 60 years 2. Md. Mumtaz, aged about 54 years Both sons of late Usman Ali, r/o. Village Guljarbag, Hatiya Chowk, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda (T), Dist. Godda (Jharkhand). ………… Defendants/ Appellants/ Appellants Versus Ram Bilash Bhagat, son of late Ramcharitra Bhagat, R/o. Village Lakra, P.O. and P.S. Rajoun, Dist. Banka (Bihar) at present residing at Mohalla- Routara, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda (T), Dist. Godda (Jharkhand). ………… Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Harshit Pradhan, Advocate ---------- 16/28.03.2025 The matter arises out of eviction suit under Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as JBC Act). The alleged tenants are the appellants before this Court and there are concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant and also default in payment of rent. Consequently, through this appeal the appellants are challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2022 (decree signed on 24.03.2022) passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2018 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2017 (decree signed on 17.01.2018) passed by learned Sub- Judge-I, Godda in Title Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2009 decreeing the suit, has been upheld. 2. This case was admitted vide order dated 06.02.2025 and upon the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and upon perusal of the records, the following two substantial questions of law were framed: 2025:JHHC:10152 2 1) Whether the appellants acquired title over the property by virtue of part performance of agreement of sale and were put in possession and therefore, whether they were under any legal obligation to pay rent to the successor in interest or even to the vendor of the plaintiff? 2) Whether the suit under Bihar Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act was itself maintainable where both the parties were claiming title over the property? 3. At the outset, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord that by virtue of execution of the decree the appellants have been dispossessed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute that they have been evicted from the suit premises, but has submitted that merely because the appellants have been dispossessed, the same will not make the case infructuous and substantial questions of laws having been framed in this case, are required to be answered. 5. Before proceeding to decide the substantial questions of law, it would be useful to give little factual background, the issues framed and the findings of the learned trial court and 1st appellate court. The Case of the Plaintiff 6. The plaintiff filed title eviction suit in connection with the suit property whose identity is not in dispute and he claimed that he has purchased the suit property by a registered deed of sale dated 09.03.2006 from the last owner and came in possession of the suit property. His further case was that the defendants were in need of the premises for their business, so they approached the plaintiff on the eve of Durga Pooja 2006 and offered for giving premises on rent, which was accepted by the plaintiff on 01.10.2006 and the rent was fixed @ Rs.300/- per month. The relationship continued and the defendants paid the rent but in the month of June, 2008 the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises on account of personal necessity. Again, the plaintiff approached the defendants to vacate the suit premises, but the defendants did not vacate the same and stopped 2025:JHHC:10152 3 payment of rent from August, 2008 and evaded payment of rent on one pretext or the other. Consequently, a legal notice was sent to the defendants on 21.01.2009 and ultimately, when no response was received and the defendants did not vacate the suit premises, the suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as personal necessity and also for arrears of rent. The Case of the defendants 7. The defendant nos. 1 and 2, who are full brothers, appeared and filed written statement objecting to the maintainability of the suit stating that there was no valid cause of action and also raised the point of limitation. However, it was their specific case that they were in possession of the property since 1966-67 and it was wrong to say that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff by virtue of registered deed of sale by the last owner. It was asserted that the sale-deed was forged and fabricated and the entire incident during Durga Pooja as asserted by the plaintiff was denied. The relationship of landlord and tenant was completely denied. It was also asserted that the plaintiff never approached the defendants to vacate the suit premises, rather the defendants were in possession of the suit premises on their own right by virtue of an agreement of sale executed by Tarni Prasad Sah dated 15.12.2003. It was also asserted that the defendants never paid rent to the plaintiff. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 had filed two different written statements but both were on the same lines. It was also stated in the written statement of the defendants that the suit for specific performance of contract was also pending. Issues framed by the Trial Court 8. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:- (1) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (2) Has plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? (3) Whether plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit premises? (4) Whether relationship of tenant and landlord exist? 2025:JHHC:10152 4 (5) Whether plaintiff has bonafide requirement of suit premises? (6) Whether the partial eviction of the suit premises fulfil the demand and necessity of the plaintiff? (7) Is plaintiff entitled for relief as claimed? 9. Altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and some documentary evidences were produced by the side of the plaintiff which are as follows: Oral evidence on behalf of plaintiff P.W.1 Mahendra Bhagat P.W. 2 Ram Bilash Bhagat P.W. 3 Shalaindra Pd. Sah P.W. 4 Nago Das P.W. 5 Mahendra Yadav P.W. 6 Tulsi Das Documentary evidences on behalf of plaintiff Exhibit 1 Sale Deed No. 165 dated 09.03.2006 Exhibit 2 Tax Receipt dated 11.11.2003 Exhibit 2/a Tax Receipt dated 08.11.2003 Exhibit 2/b Rent Receipt No. JN 1949009 Exhibit 2/c Rent Receipt No. 3155087 Exhibit 3 C.C. of order 11.09.2006 in Mutation Case 05/06-07 Ram Bilas Bhagat vs. Raiyan Mouza Gudda. 10. Altogether six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defendants and some documentary evidences were produced by the side of the defendants which are as follows:- Oral evidence on behalf of defendants 2025:JHHC:10152 5 D.W.1 Md. Mumtaz Ali D.W. 2 Nitu Ranjan Pal D.W. 3 Manoj Kr. Singh D.W. 4 Ibrar Alam D.W. 5 Vijay Kumar Sah D.W. 6 Khursid Alam Documentary evidences on behalf of defendants Exhibit A Rental Agreement dated 05.12.1977 Exhibit B Rental Agreement dated 10.01.1990 Exhibit C Affidavit Tarni Pd. Dated 08.04.1999 Exhibit D Sale Agreement dated 15.12.2003 Exhibit E to E/2 Electricity Bills Exhibit F C.C. of W.S. Mostt. Shanti Devi T.S. No. 17/06 Md. Khursid Alam vs. Mostt. Shanti Devi & Others 11. The learned Trial court considered the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 together and gave its findings in Paragraph-11 of its judgment which are as follows: - “11…………………After evaluation of oral and documentary evidence it transpires that, PW 2/Plaintiff has purchased suit premises through sale deed (Ext.1) on 09.03.2006 from Basudeo Prasad, S/o Tarni Prasad. Oral tenancy agreement of defendants with plaintiff accrued on 01.10.2006. PW 3 has deposed in cross that he has seen Ram Bilash was taking rent from Mumtaz on 02.10.2006. PW 4 also corroborated the payment of rent @Rs.300/- per month by Khursid to Ram Bilash on 04.03.2007. PW 5 also supported the payment of rent of December, 2007 to Ram Bilash by Khursid. PW1 has proved the execution of sale deed Ext. 1& Ext. 3 order of Mutation in name of plaintiff. Ext. 2/b and 2/c are rent receipts of disputed shop/house land in name of 2025:JHHC:10152 6 plaintiff. PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 have seen the payment of rent by defendants to plaintiff at different times which established that plaintiff was owner/landlord of suit premises. Thus, plaintiff has corroborated the pleadings in this respect. Plaintiff also sent legal notice to defendant to vacate house on 01.09.2008 was admitted in paragraph 14 of W.S. of Defendant No. 1. DW 1 deposed that since 1966-67 his father Usman Ali was tenant of Tarni Sah. Suit premises was further taken on rent @Rs.300/- per month from Tarni Sah by them. On 15.12.2003 sale agreement (Ext.D) executed by Tarni Sah after that he stopped payment of rent. In the meantime, Tarni Sah died and his brother Khursid has filed suit against Shanti Devi for execution of sale deed. He had no relation of landlord and tenant with plaintiff. In T.S 17/06 Shanti Devi stated that his son is mentally weak. DW 2 has proved sale agreement Ext. A and deposed that after sale agreement stopped payment of rent to Tarni Pd. Sah. DW 4 has not seen any fact, he heard that Mumtaz is tenant since 40 years and he has no knowledge about document related to case. DW 5 deposed that a dispute took place with Ram Bilash he has not seen any document so this witness is not found credible. DW6 defendant Khursid Alam deposed that Tarni had given suit premises on rent to his father Usman Ali and after his death both defendants became tenant of Tarni Pd. Further deposed Ext. A and Ext. B rental agreements, Ext. C whose admissibility in evidence discussed earlier. Further other sale agreement Ext. D. In paragraph 27 he deposed that sale agreement (Ext.D) was not registered. It is settled law that unregistered sale agreement which requires registration under Act Section 17 was inadmissible in evidence through it can be used for collateral purpose. It will not confer any title to any person party to agreement. DW 4, DW 2 deposed that Basudeo S/o Tarni Pd is a mad lunatic person also his mother Shanti stated in W.S. of T.S 17/06 that her son has weak mind. On assertation of any person cannot be declared or presumed unsound mind in certain interval he can be fit to take decisions. Defendants have not filed any document issued by competent authority that Basudeo is of unsound mind. DW1, DW 2 and DW 6 deposed that after sale agreement (Ext.D) defendants stopped payment of rent. It is apparent from evidences of defendants that Tarni Sah had terminated tenancy of defendants on event of (Ext.D) sale agreement, rather defendants have stopped payment of rent and Tarni Pd. died in year 2004. Further Tarni Sah son Basudeo Sah became owner of suit premises. On basis of sale agreement (Ext.D) defendants cannot be owner of suit premises and land. There status of tenant will remain as it is. Plaintiff on 2025:JHHC:10152 7 basis of sale deed (Ext.1) executed by Basudeo Sah become owner of premised land as well as landlord. Oral tenancy agreement and payment of rent @Rs.300/- by defendants to plaintiff established by evidences. Plaintiff has given legal notice through pleader as admitted in paragraph 14 of W.S. of defendant No. 1. After appreciation and scrutiny of evidences of both parties oral and documentary, I hold that plaintiff is absolute owner of suit premises and relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Accordingly, issue No. 3 and 4 decided negatively against the defendants.” 12. The learned Trial Court considered the Issue Nos. 5 and 6 together and gave its findings in Paragraph 12 of its judgment which are as follows: - “12. As, I discussed and hold in earlier issues that plaintiff is absolute owner of suit premises and landlord and tenant relation exists between both parties. Evidence led by plaintiff establish that he is running his readymade garment business in rented premises has emergent bonafide need to shift his business in self- purchased disputed shop premises having no other alternative to shift his readymade business. Defendants have also made default in payment of monthly rent Rs. 300/- per month. Arrear of rent due from August, 2008 to February, 2009 seven months rent Rs. 2,100/-. Suit premises schedule ‘A’ has an area 121 sqr. Ft. which is a itself a smaller area for running of readymade garment business. So partial eviction of defendants from suit premises will no meet the bonafide necessity of plaintiff except full ejectment of defendants from suit premises will meet his bonafide need. The bonafide need of plaintiff to vacate suit premises is greater than the hardship occurs to defendant. Considering the aforesaid discussion and circumstances issue No. 5 and 6 decided negatively against the defendants.” 13. The learned Trial Court considered the Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7 together and gave its findings in Paragraph 13 of its judgment which are as follows: - “13. Present suit has been filed under Section 11(e) of B.B. (Lease Rent Eviction) Control Act for eviction of defendants on ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent and recovery of arrears of rent. In view of findings given in earlier issues that plaintiff is absolute owner and landlord of suit premises. Relationship of landlord and tenant exist between plaintiff and 2025:JHHC:10152 8 defendants. Plaintiff has been found entitled of bonafide need of suit premises shop to shift his readymade business. Defendants are also found defaulter in payment of rent Rs.300/- per month and arrears of rent due Rs.2,100/- from August, 2008 to February, 2009. The eviction of defendants’form suit premises Schedule ‘A’ will meet bonafide need of plaintiff none the less. Thus, valid cause of action arose to plaintiff to sue the suit. The suit as framed in present format is maintainable. Accordingly issue No. 1, 2 and 7 are decided negatively against the defendants.” 14. Thus, the learned Trial Court considered the materials on record, both oral and documentary, and held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. The learned 1st Appellate Court also recorded concurrent findings. Arguments of the appellants 15. The specific argument of the appellants before this Court is that there is an intricate issue of title and both the parties were claiming title over the property and such an issue could not have been decided by the learned Court in a proceeding under JBC Act, as eviction proceedings under tenancy laws dealing with landlord tenant relationship are summary proceeding. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the title could be decided only through a properly constituted title suit seeking declaration of title. For that purpose, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90 (Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad and Another) (Paragraphs 14 to 17). The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1991 SCC OnLine Patna 140 (Deepak Kumar Verma Vs. Ram Swarup Singh) (paragraphs 63 and 68) and has submitted that Small Causes Court are required to go into the question of title only incidentally and in case of intricate question of title, the plaint is required to be returned for presentation to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. Paragraphs 63 and 68 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: 2025:JHHC:10152 9 “63. In this case, it may be noticed that the plaintiff's case had been that it is he who inducted the defendant's predecessor in interest as a tenant; whereas the case of the defendant is that despite execution of the deed of sale by their predecessor, Tip Narayan Singh, to Laxman Ram by reason of purported deed of sale date 4.12.1968, they continued to possess the suit premises in their own right. The issue, therefore, which arises for consideration was as to whether the defendants came in possession of the suit premises upon their induction as tenants, by the plaintiff, when he purchased the lands in-question inter alia by reason of deeds of sale dated 3.9.1975 executed by Laxman Ram in his favour as also by reason of two other deeds of sale from co-shares of Tip Narayan Singh as mentioned hereinbefore, or the defendant had been continuing in possession without any interruption whatsoever. The learned court below did not address himself to this vital aspect of the matter at all. 68. In Budhu Mal. v. Mahabir Prasad reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1772, the Supreme Court held:— “It is true that S. 23 does not make it obligatory on the Court of Small Causes to invariably return the plaint once a question of title is raised by the tenant. It is also true that in a suit instituted by the landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy a question of title could also incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by a Judge Small Causes in this behalf could not be res judicata in a suit based on title. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that in enacting S. 23 the Legislature must have had in contemplation some cases in which the discretion to return the plaint ought to be exercised in order to do complete justice between the parties. On the facts of the instant cases, we feel that these are such cases in which in order to do complete justice between the parties the plaints ought to have been returned for presentation to a court having jurisdiction to determine the title.” 16. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401 (S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram) (paragraphs 12 and 16) to submit that even an unregistered agreement of sale i.e. Exhibit-D is an admissible piece of evidence and therefore, the learned Courts have wrongly relied upon the provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and they 2025:JHHC:10152 10 ought to have relied upon the agreement to hold that even the defendants had an appropriate claim of title over the property. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the case of the plaintiff that they had inducted the defendants as tenant in the year 2006 was prima facie not established. 17. With regard to the 1st substantial question of law, the learned counsel for appellants submitted that the agreement of sale being an admissible piece of evidence and in view of the fact that the defendants were already put in possession by virtue of the agreement of sale, there was no obligation on the part of the defendants to pay rent to the plaintiff and consequently, the 1st substantial question of law is fit to be answered in favour the appellants - defendants and against the respondent - plaintiff. 18. With regard to the 2nd substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit under JBC Act was itself not maintainable as both the parties were claiming title over the property and the plaint ought to have been returned and the parties should have been relegated for filing a regular suit for declaration of title. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the vital aspect in the present case was that the father of the defendants was in possession of the property since 1966-67 and this aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the learned Courts and by virtue of this fact the entire claim of the plaintiff that he had inducted the defendants as tenant in the year 2006 is falsified. Arguments of the respondent 20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – plaintiff, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that so far as the finding with regard to landlord -tenant relationship is concerned, there are concurrent findings based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences on record and no substantial question of law has been framed on this point. He has also submitted that there is 2025:JHHC:10152 11 no scope for entering into such dispute as to whether there is landlord- tenant relationship between the parties considering the contours of the questions of law framed which is to be decided by this Court. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that so far as the agreement of sale which has been relied upon by the defendants i.e. Exhibit-D which is of the year 2003 is concerned, the same is admittedly an unregistered document. 22. He has submitted that the 1st substantial question of law relates to part performance of agreement of sale and the defendants having been put in possession, the same is essentially relatable to section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. He submits that after 2001, all the agreement of sale on the basis of which a person can claim protection under part-performance of contract under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act are required to be compulsorily registered. He also referred to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act and has submitted that introduction of the said sub-section in Registration Act is simultaneous and corresponding to the amendment in Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and there is a clear mandate that for the purposes of seeking relief pursuant to possession under part performance of contract, unregistered agreement of sale cannot be relied upon. He has submitted that unregistered agreement of sale can be looked into for any other purpose and in any other nature of litigation, even in a suit for specific performance of contract, but so far as the claim of possession on the basis of part performance of contract is concerned, the unregistered agreement of sale is clearly inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, the claim of title of the defendants by virtue of part performance of contract in terms of unregistered agreement of sale of the year 2003 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the defendants did not even have any prima facie title with regard to the property involved in the present case. 23. He also submitted that merely because suit for specific performance of contract is pending, the same by itself will not give title 2025:JHHC:10152 12 to the defendants. For that purpose, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and has submitted that by virtue of agreement, the property does not stand transferred. 24. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 7 SCC 361 (Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi) and has referred to paragraph 9 of the said judgment, which is quoted as under: “9. No doubt, agreement to sell is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of property by sale and as such, may not confer absolute title upon the respondent-plaintiff over the suit property in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, nonetheless, the agreement to sell, the payment of entire sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement itself and corroborated by the receipt of its payment and the fact that the respondent-plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property in accordance with law as is also established by the possession memo on record, goes to prove that the respondent-plaintiff is de facto having possessory rights over the suit property in part- performance of the agreement to sell. This possessory right of the respondent-plaintiff is not liable to be disturbed by the transferer i.e. the appellant-defendant. The entry of the appellant-defendant over part of the suit property subsequently is simply as a licensee of the respondent-plaintiff. He does not continue to occupy it in capacity of the owner.” 25. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which is reported in 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 5681 (Mool Chand Mundhra Vs. Smt. Indu Bala) and has submitted that it has been held as under: “A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it manifestly clear that such an unregistered agreement, vide which possession has been delivered, shall have no effect for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (in short - the T. P. Act). In other words, such an unregistered agreement cannot be used to take benefit of Section 53-A of the T. P. Act. However, Section 17(1-A) of the Act does not make such an unregistered agreement completely null and void. This provision does not prohibit user of such an agreement for any purpose except for the 2025:JHHC:10152 13 purpose of Section 53-A of the T. P. Act. Consequently, suit on the basis of such an unregistered agreement for specific purpose thereof is certainly maintainable, although such an agreement cannot be used as defence in terms of Section 53-A of the T. P. Act. Judgment in the case of Gurbachan Singh (supra) is completely distinguishable on facts.” 26. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that so far as the 2nd substantial question of law is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Courts could have gone into the prima facie title of landlord and tenant. For this, he also relied upon the judgment reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90 (Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad and Another) which has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the case is clearly distinguishable on facts. Findings of this Court 27. With respect to the 1st substantial question of law, this Court finds that the appellants are claiming title over the property by virtue of Exhibit-D, which is admittedly an unregistered Agreement of Sale wherein total consideration amount of the property has been mentioned as Rs.1.50 lakhs and during the course of argument it is not dispute that as per the Agreement and otherwise also part payment has been made. It is further not in dispute that the appellants, at the relevant point of time, were in possession of the property and pursuant to the decree passed by the learned Trial Court in the Eviction Suit they have been evicted. It is an admitted fact that a suit for specific performance of contract is pending in which the plaintiff of the present case is not a party. The agreement is dated 15.12.2003 (Exhibit-D). It is further not in dispute that even as per the claim of the appellants they were inducted as tenant in the premises way back in the year 1966-67 and till the agreement of sale of the year 2003, they have not claimed any title over the property. 28. Now, the moot question in order to answer the 1st substantial question of law is whether the appellants have acquired any title over 2025:JHHC:10152 14 the property by virtue of part performance of the agreement of sale (Exhibit-D) dated 15.12.2003. As per the provisions of Section-17(1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908 which has been inserted vide Act 48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001, it has been specifically provided that the documents containing contract to transfer any immovable property for consideration for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement then they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said Section 53-A. 29. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act has also been simultaneously amended vide Act 48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001 wherein the word “the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or” has been deleted which was earlier appearing in the aforesaid Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 30. Upon comparison of the provisions which was prior to 24.09.2001 under Section 17 of the Registration Act and also under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, pre and post amendment, this Court finds that prior to 24.09.2001 in case there was any unregistered agreement of sale and the purchasing party is put in possession of the property and the conditions contained in Section 53-A of the Transfer Property Act, 1882 was satisfied, he could not be evicted and had the right to retain the property and it was provided under Section 53-A that the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and person claiming under him any right with respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than the rights expressly provided under terms of contract. It also had a rider that nothing in Section 53-A shall affect the rights of the transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or the part performance. 2025:JHHC:10152 15 31. This Court finds that by virtue of the aforesaid amendments made in the two Acts effective from 24.09.2001, any agreement of sale has to be necessarily registered in order to claim any benefit of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. In the present case, the agreement of sale having been executed after 24.09.2001, the same being unregistered cannot be used to give any benefit to the appellants of being in possession of the property in terms of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act,1882. 32. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi [(2023) 7 SCC 361], it has also been observed that an agreement of sale is neither a document of title, nor deed of transfer of property by sale and as such, it shall not confer absolute title upon the property in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defines sale and there is a specific provision under Section 54 with regard to contract for sale wherein it has specifically provided that a contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that the sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties and it does not itself create any interest in or charge of such property. 33. This Court is of the view that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act gives special benefit to those persons who are in possession of the property by virtue of a registered agreement of sale and have acted in terms of the said Section but there can be no dispute that the agreement of sale by itself does not confer title and the special benefit is available only when the other conditions of the Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act are satisfied and the agreement of sale is a registered one. 34. The Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment reported in S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. [(2010) 5 SCC 401] (supra) and has referred to Para-16 thereof to submit that even unregistered agreement of sale is admissible in evidence and it can be relied upon for collateral purposes. This Court is of the view that 2025:JHHC:10152 16 said judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, as the same was in relation to seeking specific performance of contract based on unregistered agreement of sale and but has no applicability to claim of part performance of contract and seeking protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in view of aforesaid amendments made under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and corresponding amendments made under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, both with effect from 24.09.2001. 35. In the present case, as discussed above, agreement of sale having been entered after the cut-off date i.e. 24.09.2001, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants had not acquired title over the property by virtue part performance of agreement of sale (Exhibit-D) in possession of the suit property and consequently, they cannot deny their legal obligation to pay rent to the successor in interest or even the vendor of the plaintiff . Further, no material as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants to show that the appellants were otherwise absolved of their liability to pay rent. There is a concurrent finding of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties by both the Courts after appreciating the oral and documentary evidences. Accordingly, the 1st substantial question of law is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. 36. So far as the 2nd substantial question of law is concerned, the point is as to whether the suit under JBC Act was itself maintainable when both the parties were claiming title over the property. This Court is of the view that so far as the principle of law regarding entering into dispute of landlord-tenant relationship in a suit for eviction under Rent Control Act is concerned, in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1991 SCC Online Pat. 140 [Deepak Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. Ram Swarup Singh] by referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1988 SC 1772 [Budhu Mal Vs. Mahabir Prasad], it has been held that in a suit instituted by the 2025:JHHC:10152 17 landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy, a question of title would also incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by the Small Causes Court in this behalf, but such finding could not be res judicata in a suit based on title and in paragraph-69 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that issue of title can be incidentally gone into in a suit relating to landlord-tenant relationship. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment is that once question of title is raised, the Court can certainly go into the question of title incidentally in a proceeding arising out of landlord-tenant relationship, but the Court otherwise does not have any jurisdiction to determine the title of one or the other party and therefore, the incidental finding of title in such a suit of landlord-tenant will not operate as res judicata in a property constituted suit seeking declaration of title. In the case of Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad & Anr. [(2003) 1 SCC 90], it has been held in paragraph-15 of the judgment that a Court of Rent Controller having limited jurisdiction to try suits on grounds specified in the Special Act does not have the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil court and therefore, they cannot pass a decree for eviction on the ground other than the ones specified in the Rent Control Act. In the said case, the High Court remanded the case to the 1st Appellate Court to determine the question of title between the parties in a proceeding under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and such order was set aside by holding that the suit in connection with landlord-tenant relationship has no jurisdiction to decide the title. However, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court and aforesaid Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the question of title cannot be conclusively decided in a suit under rent control act, but certainly the question of title can be incidentally gone into while determining landlord-tenant relationship and such finding on title does not operate as res judicata when a regular suit seeking declaration of title is filed. 37. In the case of Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal reported in (1995) 6 SCC 580, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again held that in a suit for 2025:JHHC:10152 18 eviction based on relationship of landlord and tenant, the court has only to decide whether defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff or not and the question of title if disputed may be incidentally gone into in contention with the primary question for determining the main question about the relationship between the litigating parties and this has to be done in order to decide as to whether denial of landlord’s title by the tenant is bonafide and for that the court may go into the tenant’s contentions on the issue, but court is not to decide the question of title finally as the court has to decide as to whether the denial of title of the landlord by the defendant is bonafide in the circumstances of the case. 38. This Court finds that in the present case, both the courts have only incidentally gone into the issue of title of the suit property while deciding the core issue of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties as both the plaintiff and defendant were claiming title over the suit property. This Court is of the considered view that such exercise was within the scope of examination of title to the suit property even in a case arising out of landlord-tenant relationship as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ranbir Singh (supra). 39. Having held as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that there is no absolute bar in maintainability of the suit under the JBC Act when both the parties were claiming title over the property. However, the Court would incidentally enter into the point of title as and when such claim is made to decide the relationship of landlord and tenant. 40. In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court is of the view that the suit for eviction under JBC Act was maintainable even when both the parties were claiming title over the property. Consequently, the 2nd substantial question of law is also answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. 41. Both the substantial questions of law having been answered against the appellants (defendants) and in favour of the respondent 2025:JHHC:10152 19 (plaintiff), this Court finds no merit in this second appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 42. Pending I.A., if any, is dismissed accordingly. 43. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Court through FAX/E-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Kunal/Binit