JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Appellants are original defendants-tenant. 2. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs-landlords for eviction of the defendants-tenants on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. 3. It has been pleaded by the plaintiffs that Hiralal Viswakarma (father of the plaintiffs) was the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property i.e. land and building, comprising of Municipal Holding No.261, within Ward No.16 (old), and new Ward No.4, corresponding to Plot No.995, Khata No.69, situated at Mouza Jaridih-Pachamba, P.S.-Giridih (T), Distt-Giridih. 4. Being the legal heir of Late Hiralal Viswakarma, the tenanted premises devolved upon the present plaintiffs. The title of the plaintiffs is not in dispute. 5. The defendants have been inducted in the suit premises in the year 1995 by Hiralal Viswakarma. As per the pleading, the defendants have paid rent till October, 2012 and thereafter they stopped paying rent. This fact is admitted that there is a relationship of landlords and tenants and there is no payment of rent from November, 2012 onwards. 6. Defendants-tenant have taken the plea that there was an agreement to sale of tenanted premises between the defendants and Hiralal Viswakarma dated 28.11.2012, which has been marked as Ext-A. 7. As per the agreement, the defendants have paid Rs.3 lacs as consideration amount to Hiralal Viswakarma. On the strength of said agreement, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist and as such the present suit under the tenancy law is not maintainable. 8. The trial court has framed various issues which are as follows: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the deft. had defaulted in making payment of monthly rent w.e.f. the month of October, 2012 to October, 2013 continuously for a total period of 13 months, amounting to Rs.19,500/-@ Rs.1500/-per month? 4. Whether the plaintiffs have reasonable personal need and necessity of the tenanted building premises under Schedule-A of the plaint to meet their own requirements? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get Decree against the defendant No.1 for arrears if the rent amounting to Rs.19,500/-and for eviction of the defendants from the building premises described under Schedule-A of the plaint? 6. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get Decree against the defendant No.1 for arrears if the rent amounting to Rs.19,500/-and for eviction of the defendants from the building premises described under Schedule-A of the plaint? 6. Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants? 7. Whether Hiralal Vishwakarma father of the plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and husband of plaintiff no.4 on 28.11.2012 executed and agreement for sale in favour of the defendants or not? 8. Whether on 28.11.2012 the said Hiralal Vishwakarma received Rs.3 lacs from the defendant as an advance consideration money in respect of the suit land or not? 9. The trial court has given specific finding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In spite of alleged agreement of sale and there is also default in payment of rent since November, 2012 and accordingly decree of eviction has been passed against the defendants. 10. Being aggrieved, defendants-tenant have preferred an appeal being Eviction Appeal No.07 of 2016. The appellate court has framed three points for consideration, which are as follows: A. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the ld. Court was justified in deciding the same in favour of plaintiffs/respondents? B. Whether the ld. Lower court was justified in holding that defendant no.1 had defaulted in payment of monthly rent to the plaintiffs landlord after September, 2012 and the defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit premises? C. Whether the ld. Lower court has rightly hold that the plantiffs/respondents are entitled for the arrears of rent amount as claimed in plaint and whether the ld. Court has rightly decreed the suit of plaintiffs? 11. The appellate court, after considering the point in detail regarding the impact of the agreement of sale, has approved the finding recorded by the trial court and accordingly the decree of eviction has been confirmed. 12. Being aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed. It has been admitted on following substantial question of law. “Whether the finding recorded by both the courts below that there is existence relationship of the landlord and tenant is perverse in view of Ext-A, which suggests that an agreement to sell of tenanted premises has been entered into between the landlord and tenant on 28.11.2012. It has been admitted on following substantial question of law. “Whether the finding recorded by both the courts below that there is existence relationship of the landlord and tenant is perverse in view of Ext-A, which suggests that an agreement to sell of tenanted premises has been entered into between the landlord and tenant on 28.11.2012. Thus, relationship of landlord and tenant has come to an end on the date of such agreement?” 13. Thus, the issue raised before this Court is that in view of the agreement of sale dated 28.11.2012 (Ext-A), relationship of landlords and tenants is still exist or it get changed and if relationship of landlord and tenant has changed as prospective purchaser and seller, then the suit under the tenancy law is not maintainable. 14. The fact which is direct bearing upon the issue i.e. Ext-A agreement dated 28.11.2012 and Ext-1 dated 17.03.2012 i.e. fresh agreement of tenancy between the parties, which was effective till November, 2012. 15. Further, it is admitted position that Exhibit-A is unregistered agreement. The law which is relevant for the purpose of present issue is Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act which is quoted hereinbelow: [53A. 15. Further, it is admitted position that Exhibit-A is unregistered agreement. The law which is relevant for the purpose of present issue is Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act which is quoted hereinbelow: [53A. Part performance.—Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that 2[***] where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefore by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.] 16. Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act is quoted hereunder: 17. 1A The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.] 17. From the combined reading of two sections, it is evident that for taking benefit of section 53A i.e. protecting the possession over the suit land, the first compulsory requirement of law is that the agreement of sale must be registered. 18. Admittedly, in the present case, the agreement of sale is not registered and as such the benefit of Section 53A is not available to the tenant-appellants. 18. Admittedly, in the present case, the agreement of sale is not registered and as such the benefit of Section 53A is not available to the tenant-appellants. So far as disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is relevant, which is quoted hereunder: 116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.—No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given. 19. Thus, the law mandates that once the tenancy has been accepted, the tenant has no right to challenge the status of landlord on any ground whatsoever. This prohibition is complete. 20. Appellants cannot be allowed to challenge the status of landlord or relationship of landlord and tenant or tenancy on the ground of unregistered agreement of sale. 21. Thus, from above discussion, it is evident that the ground taken by the appellants that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been changed between them as there was an agreement of sale of the tenanted premises on 28.11.2012 (Ext-A) is not tenable rather it is decided against the appellants. 22. In view of the above findings given to the substantial question of law framed in the present case, the present second appeal is hereby dismissed.