PREM CHAND Vs. ONKAR DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff landlords' appeal from the decree of the dismissal of his suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant from certain accommo dation and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages.

(2.) THE accommodation in suit was owned by Dhruv Prasad and Kailash Prasad whose tenant the defendant was. By a sale deed executed on 21-8-1963 Dhruv Prasad and Kailash Prasad transferred the accommodation to the plaintiff. By another document executed on the same date the actionable claim to recover all the arrears of rent due from 18-5-1960 up to date was also transferred to the plaintiff. Then on 21-11-1963 the plain tiff sent a notice through a lawyer to the defendant intimating that the plaintiff had become the landlord by virtue of the transfer dated 21-8-1963 from the previ ous landlord who had also sold the right to recover the arrears of rent due and demanded the payment of the arrears of rent with effect from 18-5-1960 up to 21-11-1963 within one month and service of the notice and also terminated the tenancy and asked the defendant to vacate the accommodation on the expiry of 30 days of the receipt of the notice. The defendant did not tender the amount of arrears of rent due but sent a reply to the plaintiff's lawyer asking him to send a copy of the sale deed so that the de fendant could satisfy himself that the plaintiff was the new landlord. No reply was sent by the plaintiff to this letter of the defendant. The defendant then sent a reminder and took up the stand that one month's time for tendering the ar rears of rent would not start running till he was satisfied that the defendant was his new landlord. The defendant having failed to pay the arrears of rent as demanded within one month of the service of the notice and having not vacated the accommoda tion, the plaintiff then commenced the suit giving rise_ to this appeal. Besides the facts mentioned above, the plaintiff further alleged in this plaint that the defendant had sub-let a part of the ac commodation to one Dr. Ram Narain who was impleaded as second defendant in the suit. The defence set up was that there was no subletting and Dr. Ram Narain who is the brother-in-law was sitting in a part of the accommodation as a mere licensee. It was pleaded that the defen dant-tenant was not in arrears as he had paid the rent to the previous landlord and there being no default, the suit of the plaintiff was barred by Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act.

(3.) IT was urged on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the finding of the court below to the effect that the plain tiff was not entitled to recover the arrears of rent due to the previous landlord for want of notice under Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act was legally er roneous. This contention, I think has great force. The deed dated 21-8-1963 by which the right to recover the arrears of rent from the tenant was transferred by the previous landlord to plaintiff has been proved, so has been proved the deed of transfer of the accommodation on the same date. Both the deeds were registered. By virtue of Section 130, sub-sec tion (1) of the Transfer of Property Act a right to recover the arrears of rent from the tenant vested in the plaintiff as the transferee. No matter, no notice of transfer of the actionable claim in writ ing was sent to the tenant either signed by the transferor or signed by the trans feree. The vesting of the right to re cover the amount of money as arrears of rent does not depend on the sending of a notice contemplated by Section 131 of Transfer of Property Act. The purpose of a notice under the said section is to protect the interest of the transferee of the actionable claim. If a notice as con templated under Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act is not given, ;'then every dealing with the debt or of a actionable claim by debtor would be valid the against the transfer, and the transferee would not be able to recover the debt if the debtor pays it to transferor or deals with in any other manner permitted by law, The learned Judge of the court below was in error in thinking that the failure to give a notice under Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act will not create the legal liability on the defendant-tenant pay the arrears of rent to the plain-Jiff. There is no evidence on record that the defendant-tenant ever paid the ar rears or any part of it to the previous landlord, I think the learned Munsif was right in holding that the plaintiff having acquired a right to recover the arrears of rent from the defendant-tenant, was entitled to demand it and the failure of the defendant-tenant to tender the amount of arrears due within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand made him a defaulter and he ceased to be protected by Section 3 of the Rent Con trol Act