BABU BHAI HABIB BHAI Vs. BHAGWANDAS JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for ejectment has been passed against the appellant on the ground that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent in spite of notice within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, (hereinafter called the Act ). It is urged for the appellant that the arrears of rent which fell due before the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property could not be called arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Act.

(2.) MATERIAL facts are that on 24 August 1959 the suit house was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent. On 28th August 1959, he gave a notice to the appellant and on 10 October 1959, he instituted the suit. As the notice was given within four days of his purchasing the property, it could not be said that any rent had fallen due to him. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had to pay Rs. 20/- as arrears of rent to Ramdayal and Rs. 20/- to Deshraj, his predeccssors-in-title and the said Ramdayal and Deshraj authorised the plaintiff in writing to recover the arrears of rent. These writings are Ex. P-4, dated 28 August 1959, and Ex. P-5, dated 30 August 1959 respectively.

(3.) ACCORDING to the proviso to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff was not entitled to arrears of rent due before 24 August 1959 on which date the suit house was transferred to the plaintiff. It is not as if in the sale deed itself the vendor transferred to the vendee his right to recover arrears of rent which had already- fallen due. That being so, it is unnecessary to consider whether such a right can be enforced under Section 109 without applying the proviso.