N. K. KAME Vs. BIHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff had purchased the suit house under a registered sale -deed dated 7th February 1966 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000. By this sale -deed the right of the vendors to recover the arrears of rent has also been assigned to the plaintiff. On the basis of the title acquired by the plaintiff, he filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant and in that suit also claimed all the arrears of rent dup., that is to say, the arrears assigned to him under the sale -deed and those that became due after his purchase of the property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking a direction of that Court that the defendant be ordered to deposit the arrears due failing which to strike out his defence. The defendant deposited the arrears of rent due from the date of the sale -deed, that is, from 7th February 1966 and claimed that the arrears assigned to the plaintiff were not arrears of rent with respect to the plaintiff and that the defendant was not bound to deposit the same under section 13 of the Accommodation Control Act. This contention of the defendant found favour with the trial Court. Hence the plaintiff has come up in revision.

(3.) ON behalf of the defendant, it was urged that whether the claim of the arrears of rent is transferred along with the property or whether it is transferred separately to the vendee of the property or to a third party, it makes no difference. In all these cases what is transferred is an actionable claim and on such transfer in the hands of the transferee it is no longer arrears of rent but it becomes an actionable claim. The defendant relied on Daya Debi Vs. Chapala Devi, AIR 1960 Cal 378 for this proposition. The defendant further urged that the proviso to section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act makes no difference. Under that proviso, two matters are dealt with, namely, (i) that the transfer of property does not bring about the transfer of arrears of rent unless they are specifically transferred; and (ii) that the tenant, if in ignorance of the transfer of the property, that is, in the absence of notice of the transfer, pays the rent to the original landlord, then he gets a complete discharge of his liability. The function of the proviso to section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is urged, is not to make the arrears of rent in the hands of the vendor the arrears of rent in the hands of the vendee.