JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel appears for the respondents. 2. The revisionist has preferred this revision against the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge in exercise of powers as Small Causes Court whereby the application of the revisionist under Section 10 C.P.C. in S.C.C. Suit No.191 of 2011 has been rejected. 3. The revisionist claims that one S.C. Jain was the owner of the suit property and he had executed an agreement dated 27.12.1996 to sell the same in favour of the revisionist. He is in possession of the suit property in part performance of the said agreement. 4. The aforesaid owner S.C. Jain however, ignoring the above agreement transferred the property in favour of the respondents by registered sale deed dated 06.09.2010. The revisionist therefore, filed a suit No.45 of 1999 against the previous owner for a decree of permanent injunction. 5. On the other hand, the respondents have filed present S.C.C. suit No.191 of 2011 for arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist 6. Accordingly, revisionist moved application under Section 10 C.P.C. contending that the issue involved in the suit is substantially and directly the same as not in the earlier suit between the same parties. 7. The aforesaid application has been rejected on the ground that the two suits are different and the issues involved in both of them are not identical but different. 8. It is admitted to the revisionist that the alleged agreement executed in his favour dated 27.12.1996 is an unregistered agreement. The said agreement therefore, has no legal sanctity and is not enforceable in law. The revisionist as such cannot claim specific performance of it and in fact has not even claimed. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 clearly envisages that mere agreement to sell would not be confer any right in the property upon the prospective buyer . 9. In view of above, the revisionist has so far not acquired any right in the aforesaid property except for possession if at all it has been delivered to him in part performance of the said agreement. 9. In view of above, the revisionist has so far not acquired any right in the aforesaid property except for possession if at all it has been delivered to him in part performance of the said agreement. In the said suit for a decree of permanent injunction the only issue which is to be adjudicated upon is regarding the right of the revisionist to occupy the suit property which may not be disturbed by the defendant otherwise than in accordance with law. In the said suit his rights in the property are not to be adjudicated. 10. On the contrary, in the present suit before the Small Causes Court, the rights of the parties on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant, if any, is to be decided. Therefore, the controversy in both the suits is not substantially and directly the same rather completely different and distinct. 11. It may be noted that the proceedings of the Small Causes Court is of summary nature and any finding recorded therein would not operate as res judicata upon any of the parties in the civil suit. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the court below has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the revisionist filed under Section 10 C.P.C. 13. Accordingly, I find no merit in the revision. It is dismissed. Revision dismissed