Part performance under Section 53A requires readiness to perform and possession referable to the contract, not mere tenancy.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act protects a transferee only where possession is taken or continued in part performance of a contract, some act is done in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee is ready and willing to perform. A prior dismissal of a specific performance suit indicated lack of continuing readiness and willingness. Mere continued occupation as a tenant was insufficient to show that possession had changed into possession in part performance. The plea also failed because the respondent was found to be a bona fide transferee for consideration without notice, which independently defeated the claim to resist eviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, who entered the premises as a tenant and later claimed an agreement to purchase, could resist eviction by invoking part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The protection under Section 53A is available only when the transferee has taken or continued possession in part performance of a contract, has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract. A prior suit for specific performance had been dismissed, and that dismissal showed that the appellant could not establish continuing readiness and willingness to perform. The appellant also failed to prove that his possession changed from tenant to transferee in part performance; mere continued occupation as a tenant does not satisfy the statutory requirement. In addition, the respondent had been held to be a bona fide transferee for consideration without notice, which independently defeated the plea.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the protection of Section 53A and could not resist eviction on that basis.

---