VENUBAI MARUTI DIVATE Vs. BALBHIM RAMCHANDRA MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the petitioner, a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 1176 of 1974, had been filed by the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the respondent", for possession of the premises occupied by the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the "suit premises," on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of arrears of rent thus meriting a decree for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act", and also on the ground that the respondent required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation.

(2.) THE petitioner resisted the suit by contending that he had sent part at least of the arrears of rent to the original owner of the suit property from whom the respondent purchased the same on 27th September, 1973. The petitioner also contended that the original owner had not given a notice to him for attorning to the new landlord and, therefore, there existed no liability on his part to pay arrears of rent, if any, to the respondent. He also denied the reasonable and bonafide character of the requirement by the respondent of the suit premises.

(3.) THE petitioner has now challenged the said decree of eviction by contending that there was no attornment between the petitioner and the respondent and, therefore, the petitioner's liability to pay the rent to the respondent should be held to commence only from the date of the knowledge of the change of the ownership. In my opinion, this is an untenable proposition especially because in the instant case it is clearly seen that the petitioner was posted with the knowledge of the purchase of the suit property by the respondent on 27th of September, 1973. He received an intimation to this effect from the respondent himself. Despite this the petitioner continued to play truant with the payment of rent. The doctrine of attornment is available only when the tenant pays the rent to a landlord without having informed about the change of the ownership. In such a case the tenant is protected insofar as the rent payable prior to his knowledge about the ownership. In the present case such a defence is not available to the petitioner. The decree of eviction, therefore, passed by the learned Assistant Judge is perfectly correct.