The transferee of a landlord's rights is entitled to collect rent as of right and is considered a landlord under the inclusive definition, even if the tenant has not attorned in favor of the transferee.

1. The tenant faced with an order of eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1964, has filed this revision under S.115 CPC.

2. The brief facts are these. The ground floor of a building which is the subject-matter of the eviction proceedings belonged to the Respondent's father Joseph Chacko. Admittedly it was he who inducted petitioner as a tenant. The land-lord, the father, transferred his rights in favour of the son, the respondent herein, under a registered deed Ext. Al dated 21-6-1979. The son demanded surrender by a registered notice dated 2-7-1980 (Ext. B8) alleging bona fide need and thereafter filed this application for eviction. The authorities under the Act have found on the evidence that the respondent is entitled to eviction on the ground of bona fide need. These orders are challenged before me in this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however raised two contentions. (1) There is no subsisting tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent as the petitioner has not attorned to the respondent after the transfer in his favour. (2) That the transfer made in favour of respondent by the father was only a sham document.

4. It is stated that even after the transfer of the landlord's rights in favour of the respondent in 1979, rent was paid only to his father for which receipts were issued Exts. B1 and B2, in June and July, 1980. The rent was not paid to the respondent and the petitioner has not attorned to him and thus it is contended there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Elaborating this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that under S.9 of the Act every tenant who makes a demand on account of rent is entitled to obtain a receipt in the prescribed form and R.4 prescribes the form of the receipt to be issued by the landlord. He, therefore, states that unless a receipt in the prescribed form is issued by the transferee for the rents received by him, there cannot be any tenancy between the transferee and the erstwhile tenant. The contention that is thus advanced is that there is no attornment by the tenant to the transferee, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the two and no proceeding for eviction under the Rent Control Act would lie, though a remedy to dispossess on the strength of title under the general law is available. An acceptance of this contention will lead to the anomalous result that the beneficial objects of this legislation can be deprived by a simple transfer of the landlord's right with no fresh attornment between the original tenant and the new transferee. This argument is not sound in law either.

5. S.109 of the Transfer of Property Act ensures the rights available to a lessor's transferee and reads thus:

"109. Rights of lessor's transferee. 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 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 prop