Attornment by a tenant is not a prerequisite for the validity of the transfer of a landlord's rights, and a transferee of such rights automatically steps into the shoes of the transferor landlord regarding subsisting tenancy upon notice of transfer.

ORDER

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 8/10/2013 passed by First Additional District Judge, Sheopur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 40A/2013, by which the judgment and decree dated 28/2/2012 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Sheopur, in Civil Suit No.15A/2011 was set aside, and a decree for eviction under Section 12 (1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been passed.

2. The appellant is the tenant who has suffered a decree of eviction from the first appellate Court.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that Smt. Nathibai and Kamlabai, both daughters of Mojiram, were the owners of the shop in dispute, and the defendant was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.401/-. The earlier owners, Smt. Nathibai and Kamlabai, had filed a suit for eviction against the defendant under Section 12 (1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act as well as under different other grounds as provided under Section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The said civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No.378A/1988. The civil suit was decided by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Sheopur, by judgment and decree dated 22/7/1998. A civil appeal was filed by the earlier owners, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.45A/1998, which was decided by judgment and decree dated 22/4/2002, and the suit was decreed. Against which, the tenant/appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court, which was decided by judgment and decree dated 29/3/2005, and it was held that the defendant/tenant is entitled to take the benefit of Section 12 (4) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, and the suit filed by the original owners was dismissed. It was also held that the defendant will not be entitled to take advantage of the defence under Section 12 (4) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act in case a suit under Section 12 (1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is once again filed subsequently.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that by a registered sale deed dated 28/3/2006, he purchased the property in dispute from earlier owners. On 5/10/2007, he sent a notice to the tenant and demanded the arrears of rent. The tenant sent his reply on false grounds and did not pay the arrears of rent. Accordingly, it was claimed that arrears of rent of Rs.9,200/- is outstanding, and accordingly the suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.9,200/- with 2% monthly interest, as well as for recovery of rent which would accrue during pendency of the suit, as well as for eviction.

5. The defendant filed his written statement and claimed that although the plaintiff had sent a notice thereby giving information about the purchase of the property, but he demanded a copy of the sale deed, which was never supplied by the plaintiff. Therefore, no attornment had taken place, and the suit is premature. The copy of the sale deed which has been provided by the plaintiff to the defendant during the pendency of the suit clearly shows that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property. The boundaries of the disputed shop are also not mentioned in the sale deed. As per the record of the Municipal Council, Sheopur, the area of the building is 366 square feet, whereas the original owners had already sold an area of 350 square feet to one Shambhudayal. Therefore, only 16 square fe