(1.) THE facts of this case deal with a common misnomer that is prevalent particularly in relation to situations that arise when immovable properties change hands. The two questions that have arisen is as to whether when the ownership of the premises change from one landlord to the other, the tenancy automatically gets transferred to the new owner and secondly as to whether in the absence of such a situation the previous landlord is entitled to continue collecting the rent and conversely, if the tenant has made the rent payments to the previous landlord, whether that would discharge the liability of the tenant vis-a-vis the subsequent purchaser.
(2.) THE petitioner before me was the tenant of the premises from 1975 to about 1984. According to him one Saraswathi was the owner of the building and that she inducted him into the premises. In the year 1984, the petitioner tenant was faced with a eviction suit No. 968 of 1984 instituted by the present respondent in his capacity as owner of the building. According to him, he had purchased the building in the year 1973 from saraswathi and for the reasons set out in the plaint he contended that the petitioner was liable to be evicted from the premises. The petitioner did not really contest that proceeding, though he had filed his written statement wherein he contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the plaintiff and that he was always regarding saraswathi as his landlady. The petitioner agreed to vacate the premises and hand over possession. While passing orders however, the Court made an observation to the effect that the petitioner was a tenant of the plaintiff. The petitioner filed a revision Petition No. 3125 of 1986 before this Court wherein he contended that the repurcussions to him could be serious if the observation that he was tenant of the plaintiff were retained and this Court while disposing of the petition kept the matter open by observing that it was always open to the petitioner if any claims were made against him to point out that the rent paid by him to Saraswathi was a valid discharge of his obligation. As was to be expected, the present respondent-landlord filed a suit before the Small Cause Court which is the present proceeding with which we are concerned being S. C. No. 1573 of 1986 wherein he contended that the petitioner tenant has not paid arrears of rent aggregating to Rs. 9,800/- since the year 1982 but that the claim was being confined to Rs. 6,900/- being the rent recoverable for the last three years. The tenant contested the suit and it was his plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and secondly, that he will establish that the rent right upto the date of his having vacated the premises was paid to Saraswathi and that therefore no amount was recoverable from him.
(3.) IN the course of the trial, the petitioner examined him self in support of his plea that as far as he was concerned, that he was not aware of any change of ownership and that therefore he has continued all through to pay the rent to Saraswathi. He produced the rent receipts received from her and he also examined Saraswathi a son who has deposed to the fact that the rent was paid right upto the date when the petitioner vacated the premises. The learned Judge relied on the observations in the earlier order which was to the effect that the petitioner was the tenant of the respondent and consequently, the learned judge held that whatever payments the petitioner pleads between himself and Saraswathi cannot discharge his obligation to pay rent to the respondent and that therefore the suit was liable to be decreed. The learned trial Judge has proceeded on the assumption that on and from the date when the respondent became the owner of the premises that he must be regarded as the de jure landlord and that therefore ipso facto he would be entitled to claim rent from the tenants in the building. It is against this decree that the present civil revision petition has been filed.