RAM TAHAL MODI Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the second appeals and the civil revision application one identical question is involved. In the second appeals other questions are also involved. In view of the fact that identical question involved in all these cases is very crucial, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) This civil revision application arises out of an order passed by the Court below on an application filed under O.6, R.17 of the Civil P.C. (the Code for short) by which it allowed the amendment of the plaint at the instance of the transferee of the suit property from the original plaintiff. In the plaint it was stated by Akhouri Bajrang Sahay (Sahay for short), the original plaintiff, that Ram Tahal Modi (Modi for short) was defaulter in payment of rent and Modi, therefore, was liable to be evicted from the building. Eviction on the ground of personal necessity was also prayed. Sahay transferred the suit property to opposite party, Ratanlal during the pendency of the suit. Sahay thereafter died. His name was deleted. Ratan Lal in his application for amendment of the plaint, inter alia, stated that Sahay had transferred the suit property along with arrears of rent to him. He asserted that he was entitled to prosecute the suit for a decree on the ground of default in payment of rent by Modi which occurred when Sahay was the owner and landlord and also on the ground of personal necessity. Decree for arrear rent was also prayed. The prayer was allowed by the Court below.

(3.) The matter came up for admission on 3-8-1987 before a learned single Judge. The point canvassed was whether a transferee pendente lite may pray for a decree for eviction on the ground of a default in payment of rent alleged to have been committed by the tenant before the property was transferred. It was noticed that there were two conflicting decisions of this Court on this point, namely, Nand Gopal Prasad v. Most. Prem Lata Devi, 1985 0 PatLJR 923 and Bibi Saboo v. Bibi Jaibusissa, 1986 Pat LJR 1042, both rendered by P.S. Mishra, J. In Nand Gopal it was held that the transferee can pray for eviction of a tenant on, the ground of default in payment of rent when the property belonged to the transferor. In Bibi Saboo it was held that the transferee cannot take advantage of such default. In Bibi Saboo the case of Nand Gopal was not noticed. In view of these conflicting decisions, the learned single Judge (S.B. Sinha, J.) in his order dt. 3-8-1987 observed that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench. In this case we are concerned with that part of the order by which the Court below allowed Ratan Lal to prosecute the suit for eviction of Modi on the ground of default in paying the rent alleged to have been committed long before the property in suit was transferred to Ratan Lal by a registered instrument dt. 29-3-1986 and also the amendment in the relief portion by which the prayer of Ratan Lal for a decree of arrears of rent was allowed. It may noticed that in the sale deed arrear rent was not specifically assigned by Sahay to Ratan Lal.