THANKAPPAN PILLAI Vs. ELSAMMA JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the pendency of a petition for eviction as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), the landlords sold the ownership of the building to three other persons. Those persons got themselves impleaded as panics in the petition. Are they entitled to get an order of eviction in the same petition, on the ground of arrears of rent accrued prior to the agreement That question has been raised in this Original Petition filed by the tenant in challenge of the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. The tenant has not taken this ground earlier, not even in the revision filed by him before the District Court, despite the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that rent is in arrears and the landlords are entitled to the order of eviction under S.11 (2) (b) of the Act.

(2.) The petition in the Rent Control Court was filed by four persons, who were the then owners of the building, for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, subletting and acts of waste. It was alleged in the petition that the tenant had defaulted rent from 1-9-1965 onwards and that statutory notice was sent to the tenant before filing the petition. In his objections the tenant contended, inter alia, that some of the rooms in the structure were actually constructed by him and that the rent arrears relate only to one of the rooms. He also claimed benefit under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the original landlords sold the ownership of the building to three other persons, who were impleaded as additional petitioners on 17-7-1986. The Rent Control Court granted eviction on the ground of arrears of rent alone. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the District Judge in revision did not interfere. These are the bare facts necessary for this Original Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel contended that the transferee landlords are not entitled to order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent due before the date of transfer. S.8 and 109 of the Transfer of Property Act were referred to by the counsel to support the contention that since a transferee landlord is entitled to claim only the rent which falls due subsequent to the date of transfer he is not entitled to an order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. He cited the Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in flam Tahal Modi v. Ratanlal (AIR 1989 Patna 13). The said decision proceeded on the admitted fact that there was no recital in the deed of transfer regarding past rent which fell due prior to the date of transfer. In the present case it is admitted that the deed of transfer contains a provision permitting the transferees to realise the arrears of rent from the lessee. That apart, the corresponding provision in the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1983 is vastly different from S.11(2) of the Act. A reading of the relevant provision in the Act suggests that even absence of a recital in the transfer deed regarding past rent does not matter much so far as the application of the aforesaid ground is concerned.