Part performance and constructive trust arguments did not defeat eviction where the tenant's possession remained referable to tenancy.

A tenant who had entered an agreement to purchase the demised premises could not resist ejectment on the basis of part performance or the equitable effect of notice to a subsequent purchaser. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act required pleading and proof of readiness and willingness, plus possession referable to part performance, and those facts were not established. The occupant's possession remained that of a tenant, not as owner under the contract. Section 91 of the Indian Trusts Act could operate only after specific enforcement of the contract and conveyance; until then, it did not bar eviction by the landlord.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tenant who had entered into an agreement to purchase the demised premises could resist an ejectment suit by invoking part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or the equitable consequence of notice to a subsequent purchaser under Section 91 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

Analysis: The agreement to sell did not, by itself, confer title or an immediate right to retain possession against the subsequent purchaser. To invoke Section 53A, the defendant had to plead and establish facts showing readiness and willingness to perform his part of the bargain and possession referable to part performance, which was not done. His possession throughout remained that of a tenant and not in assertion of ownership under the contract. Section 91 merely fastens a constructive trust-like obligation on a purchaser with notice to the extent necessary to give effect to the prior contract, but that operates only when the contract is specifically enforced and a conveyance is obtained. Until then, it is not a defence to ejectment by a landlord against a tenant.

Conclusion: The defendant could not resist eviction on the basis of the prior agreement to sell or the alleged equity arising from it, and the appeal failed.

---