HAZEE K. ASSINAR & CO. Vs. CHACKO JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant faced with an order of eviction under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1964, has filed this revision under Section 115 CPC.

(2.) THE brief facts are these. The ground floor of a building which is the subject-matter of the eviction proceedings belonged to the petitioner's father Joseph Chacko. Admittedly, it was he who inducted petitioner as a tenant. The landlord the father, transferred his rights in favour of the son, the respondent therein under a registered deed Ext. A1 dated 21.6.1979. The son demanded surrender by a registered notice dated 2.7.1980 (Ext. B8) alleging bonafide need and thereafter filed this application for eviction. The authorities under the Act have found on the evidence that the respondent is entitled to eviction on the ground of bonafide need. These orders are challenged before me in this revision petition.

(3.) IT is stated that even after the transfer of the landlord's rights in favour of the respondent, in 1979, rent was paid only to his father for which receipts were issued Exts. B1 and B2, in June and July, 1980. The rent was not paid to the respondent and the petitioner has not attorned to him and thus it is contended there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Elaborating this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that under Section 9 of the Act every tenant who makes a demand on account of rent is entitled to obtain a receipt in the prescribed from and Rule 4 prescribes the form of the receipt to be issued by the landlord. He, therefor, states that unless a receipt in the prescribed form is issued by the transferee for the rents received by him, there cannot be any tenancy between the transferee and the erstwhile tenant. The contention that is thus advanced is that there is no attornment by the tenant to the transferee, there is no landlord tenant relationship between the two and no proceeding for eviction under the Rent Control Act would lie, though a remedy to dispossess on the strength of title under the general law is available. An acceptance of this contention will lead to the anomalous result that the beneficial objects of this legislation can be deprived by a simple transfer of the landlord's right with no fresh attornment between the original tenant and the new transferee. This argument is not sound in law either.