IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18..10..2011 CORAM THE HONBLE Mr. M.Y. EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE C.R.P. (NPD) No.1555 of 2006 and M.P. Nos. 2 of 2006 and 1 of 2010 --------------- K.M.H. Sultan Ajmal Sha ..Petitioner versus 1. Mrs.Jaya 2. Mrs.Poruthammal 3. Mrs.Thamayanthi 4. E.Saroja 5. E.Duraiswamy (R-5 impleaded as per order dated 13.10.2003 passed in I.A.No.554/2002 by the Appellate Authority) ..Respondents --------------- PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2006 passed in R.C.A. No.14 of 2002 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu confirming the fair and decretal order passed in R.C.O.P. No.5 of 2000 dated 03.10.2001 by the learned District Munsif (Rent Controller), Tambaram. --------------- For Petitioner :: Mr.P.Mohammed Ansare For Respondents :: Mr.Govinda Reddy --------------- O R D E R The civil revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in R.C.A. No.14 of 2002 confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Tambaram in R.C.O.P. No.5 of 2000. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents herein are the owners of the suit schedule premises and the petitioner herein was a tenant in respect of a portion of the said premises. On the ground that the petitioner, who was hitherto paying the rent in respect of the said portion to the vendors of the respondents, had committed default in payment thereof, the respondents filed applications under Sections 10(2)(1) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the learned District Munsif/Rent Controller, Tambaram for eviction, in view of the wilful default in payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller passed an order on 3.10.2001 in R.C.O.P. No.5 of 2000 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in question within three months from the date of the order. 3. As against the said order, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in R.C.A. No.14 of 2002 before the learned Principal Sub Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority. The grounds taken in the appeal were that the learned Rent Controller had, at the initial stage of the application filed before her, passed an order in which she failed to fix the correct quantum of rent payable by the revision petitioner, as also the period of arrears; subsequently, the learned Rent Controller corrected the quantum of rent payable, but extended the period of arrears in a later order, which is contrary to law; further, the learned Rent Controller had failed to take note of the fact that the respondents herein were not given any attornment of tenancy by the previous landlord. During the pendency of the said appeal, certain third parties sought to be impleaded in the appeal, questioning the very validity of the sale deeds entered into by the respondents herein with the erstwhile owners of the premises; it was also submitted that they had filed a suit for declaring the said sale deeds as null and void. The respondents herein opposed the impleading petition contending that the petitioner/third parties are in no way connected with the eviction petition; that the vendors of the respondents themselves have not shown any interest in the premises in question after executing the sale deeds in favour of the respondents; and that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the impleading petition. 4. Taking note of the respective contentions of the parties, the appellate authority found that when the revision petitioner had knowledge of the sale of the premises in which he was a tenant, which was communicated to him by way of notice in Ex.P.1, he was bound to accede to his tenancy under the respondents and pay rent to them from the date of receipt of such notice. The petitioner had neither replied to the notice nor did he choose to comply therewith. Moreover, the petitioner had no locus standi to question the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents and the legal heirs to the vendors of the respondents, who were entitled to challenge the same, had not taken any steps in this regard and therefore, the sale deeds in question remained unchallenged. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the finding rendered by the learned Rent Controller that the revision petitioner was in default in making payment of the rent to the respondents herein in respect of the premises in question and dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner, thereby confirming the ordered passed by the court below. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has filed the present appeal, raising almost the same grounds as in the appeal filed before the lower appellate court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the respondents. 6. Mr. P. Mohammed Ansare, learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly assailed the impugned order on the ground that there is no attornment of tenancy in favour of the respondents by the earlier landlords and therefore, the rent control proceedings against the revision petitioner stand vitiated. According to the learned counsel, before claiming any rent or right of tenancy, there must be an attornment, without which the respondents have no authority to seek eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. 7. The submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is totally misconceived and devoid of any substance. It is well settled that whenever there is an assignment of the interest of a lessor or the interest of a lessee in a lease, a new relationship comes into existence between the two sets of persons. In view of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is no requirement of attornment by lessee. In view of the said provision, the assignee of the lessor, has against the lessee, all the rights that the lessor had and can enforce not only the covenants, but even conditions. The right to receive rent in terms of the lease is one of such rights which passes to the assignee, and a lessee cannot say that he is not bound to pay the same merely because there is no privity of contract between him and the assignee. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, in the case of Kalawati Tripathi vs. Damayanti Devi reported in A.I.R. 1993 Patna 1, held as follows :- 18. The next question for determination is whether in a case where the landlord transfers his interest, an attornment by the tenant in favour of transferee is necessary to create a relationship of landlord and tenant. In other words, whether the attornment is a condition precedent for creating a relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee of the lessor and lessee. Attornment is creature of contract. Attornment is not a mere agreement in favour of a third party to pay rents but has been defined as an act of the tenant putting one person in the place of another as his landlord. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the rights of lessor's transferee. It runs as follows: - Section 109. If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it, but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him. Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased. 19. From the perusal of the aforesaid section it is clear that after the transfer of lessor's right in favour of the transferee he gets all the rights and liabilities of the lessor in respect of the subsisting tenancy. This section does not insist that the transfer will take effect only when the tenant attorns. The provisions of this section give a validity to the transfer made by the lessor with regard to his right in favour of the transferee regarding the subsisting tenancy. The question as to whether the attornment is necessary or not to create a relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and tenant came for consideration before the Lahore High Court in the case of Daulat Ram v. Haveli Sah AIR 1939 Lah 49 wherein it was held as follows : "A fresh attornment by the lessee to the landlords assignee is not necessary under the Transfer of Property Act." A Bench of Calcutta High Court had occasion to consider the said question in the case of Pulin Behari Shaw v. Lila Dey ILR (1958) Cal 427 wherein it was held that under the Indian Law a letter of attornment is not necessary to complete the title of the assignee of the reversion. Again the said question was considered by a Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of M.C. De & Bros. v. Smt. Gita Sen (73) CWN 856 wherein it was held as follows : "The second point is : the lessor transferring a tenanted house, the tenant does not become the tenant of the transferee, so long as he does not attorn to the transferee as his new landlord by paying rent to such a one amicably, or so long as he is not forced to pay rent to such a one by a decree of the court. It completely beats us how a proposition as this can be contended for, in all seriousness. We find no warrant for such an extravagant proposition which throws the transferee landlord at the mercy of a sitting tenant....." "The relationship of landlord and tenant is there between the lessee and the lessor's assignee. And still the necessity of a fresh attornment, which means acknowledgement by the lessee of the lessor's assignee as his landlord. It looks like acknowledging then the fact that the sun rises on the east". "The title of the assignee is complete. What does that mean? Since the assignment, the assignor goes out, divested of his title, and ceases to be the landlord; comes in the assignee vested with his assignor's title : the title of the landlord. So, the assignee is the landlord, and still attornment afresh : What sort of a landlord does he become then?" The said question was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar P'urbey v. Mahesh Kumar Poddar, 1991 (1) PLJR 650 wherein it was also held that in a case of eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity, an attornment by lessee is not necessary for creating a relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee of the landlord and the tenant and observed as follows : "In my considered opinion, attornment is not a necessary condition to create landlord tenant relationship between the parties. It has no bearing whatsoever in cases of eviction on the ground of personal necessity. 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 on the ground of personal necessity even if the tenant has not attorned to his tenancy under him." 20. I am in respectful agreement with the statement of law made in the aforesaid cases. In my opinion, an attornment by lessee to the assignee of lessor is not necessary for creating a subsisting tenancy. The transferee of the lessee steps into the shoes and possess all the rights which the transferor has. The attornment by tenant is not essential to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee and, in that view of the matter, the submission made on behalf of the petitioners; that the suit was not maintainable, as there was no attornment by the tenant, is without any substance and fit to be rejected. 8. In the light of the settled principles of law, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 9. So far as the other issues are concerned, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority with regard to the default and non-payment of rent and also non-deposit of rent as directed by the court below. Such finding, in my view, cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 10. Hence, there is no merit in this civil revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (M.Y.E., C.J.) October 18, 2011 ab Index : Yes Website : Yes To 1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. 2. The District Munsif (Rent Controller), Tambaram. The Honourable the Chief Justice ab Pre-delivery Order in C.R.P. No.1555 of 2006 Delivered on 18..10..2011