K. Shivashankar Bhat,j. ( 1 ) THE tenant of the premises has filed this petition challenging the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The first respondent is the landlord. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the landlord the tenant had acquired vacant possession of another residence and therefore he is liable to beevicted under Section 14 (1 ) (h) wherein a tenant could be evicted if he has acquired vacant possession, or been allotted, a residence. It is stated that the wife of the petitioner acquired possession of certain premises under an agreement of sale and therefore the petitioner/tenant being the husband could be evicted under section 14 (l) (h) from the premises belonging to the first respondent, which the petitioner has been enjoying as a tenant. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner is in possession of atleast one room under the aforesaid agreement of sale and the sufficiency of the alternative accommodation obtained by the tenant need not be gone into and hence he was liable for eviction. The Rent Control Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant went into the evidence in detail and held that the petitioner had acquired vacant possession of a residential premises with several rooms and his possession is not confined to one room alone and that the finding of the Rent Controller regarding the one room was on the hypothesis that because admittedly the petitioner was in possession of one room under the agreement of sale he could be evicted. ( 3 ) MR. Ashok Gurnani, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the following contentions: (i) Under Section 14 (l) (h) it is necessary that the tenant should acquire a residence and not some accommodation which could be termed as a residence; (ii) Acquisition of a residence should be based on a legal right and not a possession acquired under an agreement of sale; (iii) Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be availed of by the first respondent/ landlord to contend that the petitioner had acquired a right to own a property under an agreement of sale; (iv) The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal cannot go into the question of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act; (v) Whether the accommodation available to the tenant is suitable as a residence shall have to be examined. (vi) The observation of the Rent Controller that the petitioner can convert the premises obtained by him into a residence by putting up a kitchen etc. is not sufficient to attract Section 14 (l) (h ). To attract Section 14 (l) (h) the accommodation obtained by the tenant should already be a residence. ( 4 ) THE basic question is whether the agreement of sale in which. the petitioner s wife and thereafter the petitioner continued in possession of the premises is sufficient to attract Section 14 (l) (h ). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no interest in property is created by an agreement of sale and it is only a personal right. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nathu Lal v. Phoo Singh: AIR 1970 SC 546 . It was further contended that the petitioner who is the transferee under the agreement has not completed his part of the contract and therefore. Section 53-A cannot be attracted. ( 5 ) IT is quite clear that the petitioner having obtained possession of the premises under an agreement of sale is entitled to protect the said possession as against the owner who executed the agreement in his favour. In the instant case no third party is questioning the petitioner s right of possession regarding the said premises. It is entirely irrelevant to go into the question whether any right in the property as such was created. The fact remains that the petitioner is entitled to protect his possession by virtue of Section 53-A. The petitioner has paid a substantial advance under the agreement and he was put in possession. The defence that may be taken by the petitioner against the owner in a suit for specific performance is outside the scope of the present proceedings and need not be considered. No authority is needed to show that an agreement by itself does not create any interest in the property because of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also REFERRED TO to S. N. Banerji v. K. L. and S. Co. ; a decision of the Privy Council in AIR 1941 PC 128. In the said decision it was stated that Section S3-A does not operate to create a form of transfer of property which is exempt from registration. The learned counsel for the petitioner also REFERRED TO to S. N. Banerji v. K. L. and S. Co. ; a decision of the Privy Council in AIR 1941 PC 128. In the said decision it was stated that Section S3-A does not operate to create a form of transfer of property which is exempt from registration. It creates no real right; it merely creates rights of estoppel between the proposed transferee and transferor which have no operation against third persons claiming under those persons. I do not think the aforesaid observation has any bearing on the present issue before me. For the same reason the decision of this Court in Jiwan Dass v. Narain Dass; AIR 1981 0 Delhi 291 also need not be gone into. When a person is in possession of a property under an agreement of sale, it is quite clear that he has acquired possession of the said property. Section 14 (l) (h) is attracted when the tenant acquires vacant possession of a residence. It does not contemplate vesting of the title or the ownership in the tenant. It is sufficient if the tenant is capable of protecting the possession by pointing out that his possession is lawful. In the instant case the situation is that the petitioner has acquired possession of a residence under an agreement of sale. Admittedly, the premises is in a residential area and cannot be used for anything else. ( 6 ) THE other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are based on the fact that the Rent Controller confined his attention to one room only. However, the Rent Controller has REFERRED TO to the statement made by the petitioner and the Rent Control Tribunal has examined the evidence in detail and has given a definite finding that the petitioner is in possession of a substantial portion of the building under the agreement of sale and it looks as if that the petitioner is not in possession of one room on the ground floor and the rest are in his possession though he contended that his brother, S. R. Chadha was a tenant in some part of the premises. The Rent Control Tribunal has REFERRED TO to the evidence of the petitioner himself and it is quite clear that the petitioner is in possession of more than one floor of the building containing several rooms, as is clear from para 7 of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal. ( 7 ) THERE was an elaborate argument that the said building was not a residence because there was nothing to show that it has a kitchen, toilet etc. This argument was sought to be fortified by referring to several decisions explaining the concept of residence. I do hot think, it is necessary at all to go into the said question because of the finding of fact given by the Rent Control Tribunal which leads to the inference that except one room on the ground floor, the petitioner is in possession of the rest of the building which admittedly is a residential building. The building certainly ( 8 ) IN view of the above no further question arises for consideration. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are interrelated to the above findings given by me. Consequently the petition is dismissed. No costs.