Transfer of premises during pendency of proceeding by landlord.

M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.

1. This civil revision petition filed by the tenant is directed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from July, 1979 till the institution of the proceedings for eviction against him. Though initially the petition for eviction was filed on several grounds, we are only concerned with the case with the ground of wilful default.

2. The cases of the tenant was that for the premises in the occupation of the tenant which were originally let out by the original owner at the rate of Rs. 40 per month, the rent came to be increased to Rs. 80 per month in 1974 from Rs. 50 per month which was the rent paid in 1966. The application for eviction was filed some time in 1980 and the allegation was that for a period of one year, the tenant had not paid rent. The tenant's case was that the rent payable was only Rs. 40 per month and he has paid the rent without any default. He claimed that the landlord issued receipts only in 1968 and thereafter the landlord stopped issuing receipts. Rent was paid upto April, 1980, according to the tenant.

3. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlord which was proved by the original petitioner No. 3 and who examined himself as P.W.2 that in 1968 the rent was fixed as Rs. 50 and it came to be increased from time to time till 1974 when it was fixed at Rs. 80. The fact that rent was not fixed at Rs. 40 was supported by counterfoils of receipts which were issued in 1966, Exhibits A1 to A3, out of which Exhibit A1 contained the signature of the tenant. The Rent Controller rejected the two documents Ex.B1 and B2 produced by the tenant which purported to be receipts dated 7.10.1967 and 12-11-1968 and which purported to be signed by deceased Kaliappan, father of petitioner No. 3. These documents were rejected on the ground that they were not put into P.W.2 when he was in the witness box. Having rejected the story that the rent was payable only at Rs. 40 per month, the Rent Controller accepted the story of the landlord that rent was payable at Rs. 80. The oral evidence of the landlord having been accepted, it was held that the tenant was a wilful defaulter. This finding had been confirmed by the Appellate Authority who also rejected the story of the rent being Rs. 40 as untrue. Arrears were found due for the period July, 1979 to June, 1980. The order of eviction was thus confirmed.

4. This civil revision application was filed by the tenant During the pendency of the civil revision petition, the landlords have transferred the house property in question to two persons, namely, M.S. Sikkandar and S. Mohamed Jaffar who have now filed an application for being joined as respondents 5 and 6. It is important to point out that the purchasers did not want to be substituted in the place of the original landlords as sole respondents, but that they want to be joined as additional respondents. This application was not seriously opposed in view of the sale deed and the application will therefore stand ordered.

5. It is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent event of the house property having been transferred to the newly added respondents as well as the fact that the tenant had not attorned himself to the new purchasers, and that there was no relationship of tenant and landlords between the purchasers and the tenant should be taken into account with the result that the revision petition should be allowed and the eviction petition should be dismissed. In any case, according to the learned Counsel, so far as the purchasers are concerned, it could not be said that the tenant was in arrears of rent and therefore there could not be any default by the tenant and consequently no order for eviction could be made against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in favour of the purchasers. The argument in substance is that having regard to the subsequent event of the