N.L.GANGULY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment of the lower revisional Court, Additional District Judge, dismissing the revision arising out of judgment and decree for the arrears of rent and ejectment passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court. The house in question originally belonged to Gaya Prasad. He was the landlord in respect of the accommodation in question. The defendant petitioner occupied a tin shed room @ Rs. 6/- per month for the last several years. Admittedly, the house in question along with the tin shed room in question was sold to one Smt. Shail Kumari the present landlord-respondent by a sale-deed dated 11.6.1987.
(2.) AFTER purchase of the house in question, the landlord served a notice of arrears of rent and ejectment dated 6.7.1987 claiming the arrears of rent for the period 8.1.1971 to 8.8.1987 @ Rs. 25/- per month. A written statement was filed by the tenant-petitioner. It was specifically pleaded that rent for the period of 18.11.1971 to 17.8.1987 was deposited by him under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is on the disposal of the landlord. It was also stated that before depositing the amount of arrears in the Court a money order for Rs. 996/- was sent to the original landlord Gaya Prasad which was refused. Hence, the amount was deposited in the Court. The claim of the plaintiff opposite party was opposed and it was stated that no decree for arrears of rent and ejectment can be passed against him. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court observed that the claim of the plaintiff-respondent for arrears of rent w.e.f. 10.11.1971 had become barred by limitation. The learned J.S.C.C. decreed the suit for ejectment on the ground that the tenant-applicant had failed to deposit the rent for more than 4 months at the time of notice, as well as after the institution of the suit. The most important fact in the present case is that a copy of the sale-deed which was filed in the Court below also does not show that the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1971 as claimed by the plaintiff-opposite party was not assigned by the vendor to the plaintiff-respondent vendee. Unless there is a specific stipulation in the sale-deed transferring the right to realise the arrears of rent accrued in his favour, no suit can be filed on that ground. If there was no legal right to claim arrears of rent for a period which has not been transferred by a valid sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party that cannot be a taken as a ground for seeking ejectment on account of default. The notice of demand of arrears of rent was issued immediately after one month from the date of purchase of the property. As such, on the date of notice, there was no arrears of rent for more than four months. No suit is maintainable under the provision of Section 20(2) of the Act that unless on the date of service of the notice, there was an arrears of rent for four months or more. No notice of such demand could be issued. In view of fact that notice was issued the next month, after the purchase of the house in question and there was no legal sanction for claiming of the arrears of rent, which may have accrued in favour of the earlier landlord, there was no justification for the landlord to have issued notice for arrears of rent and ejectment. The Court has taken an erroneous view in the matter and decreed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. The judgment and order Annexure 3 dated 15.5.1990 and Annexure 5 dated 25.10.1990 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar and VIII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, respectively are quashed.
(3.) THE petition is allowed. The parties to bear costs. Petition allowed.;