S.K.KESHOTE, J. - (1.) BOTH the revision petitions arises from two different suits, but the plaintiffs in these two suits are common though the defendants are different persons, but the points involved for consideration of this Court in these matters are identical and as such the same are taken up together for hearing and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) THE facts of these cases are taken for deciding these revision petitions from S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1599/99. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for eviction of the defendant non -petitioners No. 1 from the suit shop on the ground of default in payment of rent. Other grounds for eviction have also been taken i.e. reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit premises and the material alteration made in the premises. The defendant non -petitioners have come up with the case that though originally the premises were taken on rent, but the plaintiff petitioner on 9.10.1993 executed an agreement to sale the suit premises or tenanted premises in favour of defendant non -petitioner No. 2. The defendant No. 1 has handed over the possession to the defendant No. 2. The relation -ship of landlord and tenant has come to an end. Learned trial Court under its order dated 19.8.1998 held that the plaintiff petitioner has already entered into an agreement to sale with defendant non -petitioner No. 2 and as such rent could not be determined. Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner which came to be rejected by the appellate Court under order dated 3.8.1999, hence this revision petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff petitioner submitted that the execution of the alleged agreement to sale the tenanted premises has been denied by the plaintiff petitioner and as such it could not have been taken into consideration to the extent of declining to determine the provisional rent. It has next been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner that the agreement to sale otherwise also does not pass right, title or interest in the suit premises in favour of alleged vendee. So long as the agreement to sale is not finalised and culminated in the sale -deed, the tenant continues to be the tenant of the plaintiff -petitioner and the rent has to be determined under Section 13(3) of the Act. Lastly, it is contended that for determination of the rent under Section 13(3) of the Act, the Court is not required to go on all these questions of fact. It is a provisional determination of rent and it is for the benefit of the tenant. If he (tenant) considers that the relationship of landlord and tenant has come to an end, he may not deposit the rent and face the consequences.;