ATMAKURI RAMA RAO Vs. BUDANKAYALA SAYAMBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the Defendant is against the concurrent decrees passed by the Courts below for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1.340/ - from him towards arrears of rent due from him to the vendor of the opposite party.

(2.) THE Petitioner 's father was a tenant under one Kasinath Subudhi in respect of a house at a monthly rental of Rs. 50/ -. He was in arrears from 31 -3 -1972. Kasinath Subudhi sold the house to the opposite party under a registered sale deed dated 12 -7 -1977 and by a document of the even date assigned his claim to the arrears due to him from the Petitioners to the opposite party. The Petitioner 's father died in the meanwhile. Since despite demands by the opposite party rent was not paid, the suit was filed on 19 -4 -1978 seeking recovery of rent for the period from 18 -4 -1975 to 12 -4 -1977 amounting to Rs. 1,340/ -. Rent for the period prior to 18 -4 -1975 was given up as barred by time. Defendant denied the purchase by opposite party and refuted the allegations that his father was in arrears. It was contended that his father and be had acquired non -evictable tenancy rights. It was denied that there was any arrears. An assertion was made that rent was paid up to May 1977. Other pleas are not relevant.

(3.) THE only question that was urged by the learned Counsel for the Defendant -Petitioner was that the opposite party was not entitled to recover arrears by virtue of Ext. 7. On the other hand, Shri Ratho for the opposite party submitted that the rent due was an actionable claim which could be transferred by execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent as provided in Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. Ext.7 having satisfied the requirement, the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit.