M. P. Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's revision application against the judgment and order dated 12-3-1977 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kanpur.
(2.) IN brief the facts are that House No. 15/238 Civil Lines, Kanpur, originally belonged to Sri Ram Lal Kapoor. It was let out to the defendant-revisionist on a rent of Rs. 93.75 per month. On 31-7-1955 Sri Ram Lal Kapoor executed a permanent lease of this house in favour of his son, the plaintiff-opposite party. The latter demanded rent by means of notices dated 25-9-1970 and 19-5-1971 but the defendant failed to pay it within one month from the receipt of notices. His tenancy was also terminated by means of the second notice. On 24-1-1972 the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the said premises; recovery of Rs. 1,693.73 as arrears of rent and Rs. 1,030/- as damages and pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day. The defendant contested that suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the plaintiff alone had no right to sue because after the death of Sri Ram Lal Kapoor his widow, two sons and two daughters became the owners of the house; that he had paid rent to the plaintiff alone for all the landlords; that the plaintiff alone had no right to give notices; that he had sent a cheque of Rs. 1,125/- to the plaintiff on 26-6-1970 in respect of the rent due upto 31-1-1971 and, as such, no rent was in arrears on 25-9-1970 when the first notice of demand was given by the plaintiff; that in July 1971 he paid Rs. 1500/- to the plaintiff's mother and she promised to adjust it towards rent and rent upto 31-5-1971 stood paid and he was not liable to ejectment. The learned trial court negatived all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the suit. Pendente lite and future damages were awarded at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day.
(3.) THE defendant filed a revision and the learned Additional District Judge concurring with the findings of the learned trial court, dismissed it with costs. The defendant has come up in revision to this Court and reiterated his pleas. In the first place, it is argued that after the death of Sri Ram Lal Kapoor his widow, two sons and two daughters became owners of the house and the plaintiff alone was not entitled to give notice or file that suit. It has also been urged that the permanent lease in favour of the plaintiff was void because it contravened Section 7 of U. P. Act III of 1947 and was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The learned lower revisional court has discussed this aspect of the matter at great length and has rightly held that the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff was not hit by Section 7 of Act III of 1947 nor it was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. 1 find no satisfactory reason to disagree with him. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act specifically lays down that if the lessor transfers any part of his interest in the property the transferee shall have all the rights of the lessor as against the lessee so far as their relations inter se are concerned. A lease is a transfer of interest or part of interest in the demised property. Therefore, the lease deed dated 31-7-1955 is also a transfer within the meaning of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act.;