In the absence of assignment of arrears of rent in favor of the vendee landlord, the vendee landlord cannot claim arrears of rent or seek ejectment of the tenant.

Ashok Bhan, J.

1. Present revision petition filed by Ranjit Singh, tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) arises out of the following facts:-

2. K.K. Sikand, landlord (hereinafter referred to as the original landlord) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the ejectment of the tenant from the rented portion of the house consisting of three rooms on the first floor situated in Shastri Market, Kapurthala on the ground that the tenant took three rooms on the first floor of the building on rent without terrace at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month on 16.6.1980 by executing a rent note for 11 months and agreed to vacate the premises on 15.6.1981; that on the failure of the tenant to vacate the premises on the stipulated date, he was liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month from 15.6.1981 onwards and that the tenant had paid rent only upto 15.2.1982 and was in arrears of rent till the filing of the ejectment petition. It was also pleaded that the tenant had also impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. Ejectment petition was contested by the tenant. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, the original landlord sold the premises in dispute to Subash Chander hereinafter referred to as the vendee landlord? and on his application, he was impleaded as a party along with the original landlord.

3. In the written statement filed, a preliminary objection was taken that the description of the rented premises has been wrongly mentioned. On merits, it was alleged that the vendee landlord had no locus standi to file the petition for ejectment as he had become the owner of the property in dispute on 23.12.1985 and that he had no right to continue the proceedings for recovery of the rent as the rent had not been assigned by the original landlord in his favour. It was averred that the fate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month and the same had never been increased to Rs. 350/-per month as claimed by the original landlord; that the original landlord had been receiving the rent regularly; sometimes through cheques and sometimes in cash at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, that the rent had been paid upto 15.11.1985 as detailed in para 3 of the written reply and that the vendee landlord had claimed rent by filing another ejectment petition upto 22.10.1986. During the course of hearing before the Rent Controller, tenant appeared in the Court and tendered a sum of Rs. 900/- as rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month w.e.f. 15.1.1985 to 15.12;1985 less the amount paid by cheques during these months. In addition to this, the tenant also paid an amount of Rs. 150/- as interest and Rs. 50/- as costs, as assessed by the Rent Controller.

4. In response to the written statement filed, replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the tender was not valid ? OPA

2. Whether the respondent has made material alterations in the demised premises diminishing thereby its value and utility ? OPA.

3. Whether the site plan is not correct ? OPR.

3A. Whether the petition is bad for partial ejectment ? OPR.

4. Relief.

5. Issues No. 1, 3, 3-A and 4 were decided against the tenant whereas issue No. 2 was decided against the landlord-respondents. Tenant, aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller preferred an appeal which also stands dismissed by the appellate authority, aggrieved against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

6. Arguments have been addressed before me only on issue No. 2. Counsel for the tenant argued that the tenant had paid the rent upto 15.11.1985 which stands proved from the copy of the accounts Exh. RW-5/2 to Exh. RW-5/5, pertaining to the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 maintained by the tenant and that the original landlord had issued valid receipts Exh. R-2 to Exh. R-6. That, the original landlord, although an Income Tax assessee, failed to p