The transferee is entitled to recover arrears of rent as rent if the right to recover the arrears is assigned, and can maintain a petition for eviction under the rent laws for those arrears as well.

Judgment

BHAN, J.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the trial court which was duly confirmed by the first appellate court, and later in the High Court the tenant/appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have filed these appeals. The courts below have disposed of proceedings by a common order as the facts and the point of law involved in both the cases are the same. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) SHORTLY stated the facts are : House No. 2690 on City Survey No. 1900 of Buhsawal are the demised premises. One Mr. Mohammad yahya was the owner. He let out the property to the appellants in the year 1946. After partition Mohammad Yahya migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947. He came to India in the year 1957 and collected the arrears of rent. For future he directed the tenants that the rent be paid to Fatimabi. Appellants accepted the arrangement and started paying the rent to fatimabi. Municipal taxes which were required to be paid by the tenants were not paid in respect of the said house and a warrant of attachment was issued by the Municipal Council, Bhusawal. In execution of that warrant the house in dispute was ordered to be sold by the public auction. Fatimabi purchased the house in dispute in auction. Sale in her favour was confirmed. On 15th April, 1976 she transferred her ownership rights in favour of respondent sheikh Ghasu Sheikh Ibrahim (since deceased) represented by Lrs. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent ). On 16. 4. 1976 Fatimabi addressed a communication to the appellants informing them that she had transferred her rights in the property in favour of the respondent and directed the tenants to pay the arrears of rent due prior to the date of transfer as well as future rent to the respondent. This letter of attornment was received by the appellants. Respondent-landlord thereafter issued a notice to the tenants calling upon them to pay the rent due for the tenements in their occupation. Appellants refused to recognise the respondent as their landlord and pay the rent. Thereafter, the respondent file separate suits seeking eviction against the appellants on the grounds (i) that appellants were defaulters as they had failed to pay rent due for more than six months and (ii) that the respondent required the house bona fide his personal occupation.

( 3 ) AFTER service of notice appellants entered appearance. They did not seriously dispute the fact that they were in arrears of rent as had been stated by the respondent. They denied the title of the respondent and the relationship of landlord and tenant with him. They also challenged the sale deed executed by fatimabi in his favour. They also stated that the transfer by the Municipal Council of the property in dispute to Fatimabi was no sale in the eye of law being illegal. According to them fatimabi got the house transferred in her favour fraudulently. That Fatimabi was entitled to receive rent only. They did not recognise her as owner of the said house. They challenged the title of the respondent and refused to accept him as owner of the house till he got his title decided from a competent court having jurisdiction.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings several issues were framed. Trial Court held that the respondent had become the owner of the suit premises being transferee from Fatimabi. The ground of bona fide or personal occupation was declined. The appellants were found to be in arrears of rent for more than six months and consequently were ordered to be evicted. This order of the trial court was confirmed in appeal. Writ petitions filed by the appellants in the High Court challenging the said orders were also dismissed.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that Fatimabi was neither landlord nor the owner of the property. She was only a rent collector on behalf of the original owner. The transfer of property in her favour by the Municipal Council was illegal as Municipal Council