MAIMUN NISHA Vs. GULSHAN JAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Defendants are appellants. Bibi Amina was owner of the suit house, who had inducted Md. Nayeem as tenant therein on monthly rental of Rs. 150/ - Plaintiff purchased the suit house, detailed in Schedule to the plaint from the Bibi Amina on 16.6.1987. The tenant -defendant was duly informed about the transfer by notice dated 27.6.1987 and 23.7.1987, but he did not pay, any rent to the plaintiff and rendered himself liable for eviction on account of default in payment of rent. Plaintiff also required the suit house for personal necessity. She had two sons aged 15 and 23 years respectively and a daughter aged 20 years who was a college student. She was living in a house, which consisted only two rooms and after her sons marriage additional accommodation was required. Plaintiff therefore prayed for defendants eviction as also decree for arrears of rent. Defendant contested the suit denying relationship of landlord and tenant. According to him, Bibi Amina had no right to sell the suit house to the plaintiff in view of earlier agreement for sale thereof in his favour, for which advance consideration amount was also paid. Defendant claimed to have invested Rs. 3000/ - towards repairs with consent of Bibi Amina, which was being adjusted in rent. Defendant denied any notice about transfer in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiffs personal requirement of the suit house was also denied, trial Court decree the suit holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties after Bibi Amina transferred the suit house to the plaintiff through the sale deed, Ext. 4. Admittedly defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiff. Defendant failed to prove permission of Bibi Amina for making/ investment towards repairs and adjustment thereof in future rent. Plaintiff had reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit house and partial eviction of the defendant therefrom was not to serve her purpose. Defendant preferred Title Appeal No. 84 of 1994, which was also dismissed by impugned judgment and decreed dated 14.2.2000. It was held that admittedly defendant was tenant of plaintiffs vendor and he got knowledge about purchase of the suit house by plaintiff from Bibi Amina. Defendant admitted in his pleading and evidence that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff. He failed to prove payment of any rent to the plaintiff after purchase of the suit house, Plaintiff required the suit house reasonably and in good faith for residential purpose for herself and her sons.

(2.) IT is well settled that atornment is not a condition precedent for creating a relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee of the landlord and the lessee. The transfer takes place with all incidents of right, title and interest of the lessor and the transferee is entitled to sue the existing tenant for eviction under the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, even if the tenant has not attorned to his tenancy under him. Attornment of tenant is also not essential to give validity to the transfer made in favour of transferee.

(3.) SECOND appeal dismissed.