- (1.) The respondent-landlord herein purchased the demised house from Smt. Bano, the original land-owner, vide registered sale deed dated 16th September, 1974. He intimated by a notice dated April 12, 1976 to the tenant that he had purchased the demised house. This notice was received by the tenant on 10th May, 1976. On 26th November, 1976, the respondent landlord sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenant herein inter alia on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 16th of September 1974, to the date of the filling of the petition. The rent stated was Rs. 125/- per month. The tenant tendered rent on the first date of hearing from 1.1.1976 to 30.11.1976 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month as his case was that the rent of the demised building was Rs. 30/- per month and case was that he had paid rent to the original landowner i.e. Smt. Bano upto 31st December, 1975. The Rent Controller found the rent to be Rs. 30/- per month. He dismissed the petition on the ground that the tenant was not in arrears of rent as the relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence with effect from 10th of May, 1976 and the tenant having tendered the arrears, no rent could be held to be due when the petition was filed.
(2.) Before the Appellate Authority, the finding of the Rent Controller regarding the rate of rent was not challenged, but was accepted. The Appellate Authority reversed the other finding of the trial court that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties came into being only with effect from 10th May, 1976 the date on which the intimation of the change of ownership of the demised premises had been given to the tenant. The Appellate Authority held that the rights of landlord became effective and operative from the date on which the house was transferred to him by the previous landlord i.e. on 16th September, 1974, as by virtue of Section 55(6) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, he became entitled to all rents and profits of the property purchased by him from the date of its purchase. In my opinion the Appellate Authority rightly came to the said conclusion. Mr. R.L. Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged basing himself on the provision of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act that unless the tenant was to elect to recognise the present transferee-landlord, the relationship of tenant and landlord would not come into existence and the tenant had no occasion to do so before 10th of May, 1976 as it was on that day he was intimated about the transfer of ownership of the demised property.
(3.) Relevant portion of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act is in the following terms :- "If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him".;