Does the mere execution of an agreement to sell by a landlord in favour of a sitting tenant, on payment of part consideration, by itself put an end to the tenancy?

No. The tenancy is not determined unless the terms of the agreement or the parties' unequivocal conduct disclose an express or implied surrender under Section 111(e) or (f) of the Transfer of Property Act; part payment of consideration alone does not suffice.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.111(e), s.111(f), s.53A, s.54 — Registration Act, 1908 — s.17(1A) — Surrender of tenancy — Agreement to sell — Part performance — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.111(e)(f) — Surrender — Mere agreement to sell insufficient — Held: The mere execution of an agreement to sell between a landlord and tenant, even on part payment, does not ipso facto determine the tenancy. Determination requires an express or implied surrender under Section 111(e) or (f) of the Transfer of Property Act. (¶20, 21) Surrender — Terms of the agreement — Reversion of possession negatives surrender — Held further: Surrender must appear from the agreement's own terms or conduct inconsistent with continuing tenancy — as in R. Kanthimathi, where possession was expressly acknowledged as already surrendered. The present agreement instead provided for reversion of possession "as it was" if the loan fell through, negativing any surrender. (¶12, 22) Section 53A — Part performance — Possession must be referable to the agreement — Held further: Continuous possession as a tenant after an agreement to sell is not part performance under Section 53A unless referable to the agreement rather than the antecedent tenancy. Having entered as a tenant, the petitioner could not show his possession had become that of a transferee. (¶18, 24) Registration Act, 1908 — s.17(1A) — Unregistered agreement — No s.53A protection — Held further: An unregistered agreement to sell executed after the 2001 amendment to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act has no effect for the purposes of Section 53A. The petitioner could not invoke that protection, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. (¶25, 29)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of NAZIM SHAIKH HASAN v. NASIR MUSHTAQ SHAIKH — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India