A tenant must attorn to a new landlord following a valid property transfer and pay rent to avoid default; mere non-acceptance of rent does not absolve the tenant of this obligation.

JUDGMENT

Date : 27-02-2018

Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondents- caveators.

2) By this revision under section 115 CPC , the petitioner has challenged the first appellate judgment and decree dated 27.10.2017, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 7/2014, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2013, passed by the Court of the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in T.S. No.469/2008, thereby allowing the counter-claim of the respondent/ defendant.

3) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in T.S. No.469/08. He had filed a suit was filed for declaration and injunction. As per the plaint, the petitioner is the tenant in the two Assam Type rooms with covered verandah, one kitchen and one out-house with toilet, assessed under Holding No. 33 of GMC Ward No. 34, which was situated in a plot of land covered by Dag No. 912/1275 (New) of Annual Patta No.4 of Sahar Guwahati Part-VI, under Mouza- Ulubari. It was claimed that the tenancy was subsisting between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and the petitioner has the right to possess the suit house. In the plaint, the petitioner had, inter-alia, prayed for an injunction to restrain the respondent from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises and from illegally evicting him.

4) The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein, who were arrayed as defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit had filed their joint written statement cum counter-claim, inter-alia, stating that the respondent No.2 was nowhere connected with the suit property and had no interest in the suit property and that the respondent No.1 had sold the suit property to the respondent No.3 vide sale deed No.10591 dated 01.08.2008 and, as such, the respondent No.3 had become the absolute owner of the land and house covered by the said sale deed, which included the suit premises. It was stated that after purchasing the suit land, a notice for attornment of tenancy was issued to the petitioner on 24.12.2008. It was also stated that the respondents No. 1 and 3 had requested the petitioner on several occasions to attorn his tenancy and to pay monthly rent from the month of August, 2008 onwards. But instead, the petitioner sent his rent to the respondent No.1 by bank draft along with a letter dated 17.12.2008 to sell the suit land to him at a reasonable price. The respondent No.1 had responded to the said letter by his letter dated 22.12.2008, wherein he had stated that he had not received rent for the last four years and that had sold the said property to the respondent No.3 and accordingly, the bank draft was returned. Hence, the counter-claim was filed for evicting the petitioner on the ground that the suit land was bona fide required for reconstructing of a modern RCC building thereon as well as on the ground that the petitioner was defaulter, and prayer was made to put the respondent No.3 in khas possession in the suit premises and for recovery of arrear rent, pendente lite and future rent and for permanent injunction.

5) As against the said counter-claim, the petitioner had filed his written statement, inter-alia, taking a plea that the transfer of the suit land was illegal as the land was a annual patta land. The petitioner denied the receipt of the purported letter dated 24.12.2008 for attornment. It was