Agreement to sell does not end tenancy unless expressly stated; material alterations and unregistered documents defeat specific performance.

A mere agreement to sell does not extinguish an existing tenancy unless the document expressly substitutes the tenant's possession as that of an agreement holder and discharges the rent obligation. On the facts discussed, the agreement contained un-attested corrections to the execution date and contractual period, was unregistered, and was insufficiently stamped, so it was treated as materially altered and could not support specific performance or the plea of part performance. The tenancy therefore continued, the termination notice remained valid, and eviction was not barred on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement to sell was materially and unauthorisedly altered so as to defeat the suit for specific performance and the plea under part performance; (ii) Whether the landlord-tenant relationship stood extinguished by the agreement to sell so as to bar eviction and invalidate the notice of termination.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement to sell was materially and unauthorisedly altered so as to defeat the suit for specific performance and the plea under part performance?

Analysis: The agreement contained corrections relating to the date of execution and the contractual period, and those corrections were not attested. The Court held that such alterations were material because they affected the time framework of the bargain and the rights of the parties. It also held that the document was not registered, and therefore the statutory protection of part performance was unavailable. The Court further noticed that the document was insufficiently stamped, reinforcing its infirmity.

Conclusion: The agreement was rightly treated as materially altered and unenforceable, and the plea based on part performance failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord-tenant relationship stood extinguished by the agreement to sell so as to bar eviction and invalidate the notice of termination?

Analysis: The Court held that a mere agreement of sale does not automatically terminate the tenancy unless the document expressly so provides. On the facts, Ex.B1 did not show any clear stipulation that the tenant's possession would thereafter be only as an agreement holder or that the obligation to pay rent had ceased. The notice under the transfer of property law was therefore held valid, and the Rent Control plea also failed since the applicability of the special enactment was not established.

Conclusion: The tenancy continued, the eviction suit was maintainable, and the notice of termination was valid.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings below were left undisturbed, the suit for specific performance failed, and the landlords' eviction claim succeeded, resulting in dismissal of both second appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere agreement to sell does not extinguish an existing tenancy unless the agreement expressly substitutes the tenant's possession with that of an agreement holder and discharges the liability to pay rent, and an unregistered agreement containing material alterations cannot sustain a claim for specific performance or part performance.

---