- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11-4-1997 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the application of the petitioner for stay of the proceedings initiated by the landlord-respondents under Section 16 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) for release of the disputed accom modation.
(2.) THE facts of the case inlmei are that fespondents 2 to 5 filed application for release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide need. It was alleged that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the said accommodation. The petitioner submitted objection stating that respondents 2 to 5 had entered rnto an agreement on 10th March, 1976 to sell half portion of first floor and second floor of house No. 78/286 Anwarganj, Kanpur Nagar, for consideration of a sum of Rs. 2,500. They also delivered ihe possession in pursuance of the said agreement. During the pendency of the case he filed application for staying the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act stating that he filed suit No. 31 of 1983 against respondents 2 to 5 for specific performance of the agreement on 17-1-1983 which is still pending in the court of IVth Additional Civil Judge Kanpur Nagar. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by aforesaid impugned order of respondent No. 1 which is under challenge in the instant case. Shri O. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question involved before Rent Control and Eviction Officer in proceedings under Section 16 of the Act is involved in the suit filed by him pending in the Civil Court and unless the suit is decided, respondent No. 1 should not proceed in the matter. It is contended that the question of title cannot be decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He has placed reliance upon the decisions, D. S. Victor v. The District Judge, Bareilfy and others, 1978 A. R. C. 413, Smt Kailashwati v. IV Addl. District Judge and others, 1980 A. R. C. 388, Mahesh Dutt Awasthi v. Illrd Additional District Judge Kanpur and others, 1981 A. R. C. 224, Smt. Kela Devi and others v. Rameshwar Dayal, 1982 AR. C. 149 and Vtrendra Prasad Shukla v. Ram Swarup and others, 1983 A. R. C. 179. These cases have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not to determine the question of title. The mere agreement itself does not create any interest in or charge on the property agreed to be sold.
(3.) NEXT submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being in possession of the property in dispute in pursuance of the agreement of sale, he is entitled to retain possession of the disputed property in ac cordance with the provision of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. He has placed reliance upon the decision Kuldip Singh Sawhney v. Mrs. Parkash Chand and others, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 222, wherein it has been held that tenant invok ing Section 53-A and claiming to be in pos session not as tenant, but in part perfor mance of agreement of sale, is entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Trans fer of Property Act. This case has no applica tion in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has filed the suit in the year 1983. It has yet not been decreed. The suit is for specific performance of agreement. The petitioner shall be not evicted except in accordance with law. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide as to whether the petitioner was in ducted as tenant prior to the alleged agree ment of sale or he came into possession in pursuance of agreement of sale. The matter can be examined in accordance with law by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer while deciding the objection. It is not a case where the proceedings should be stayed. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;