Under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, a transferee of a landlord's interest steps into the shoes of the lessor, creating a statutory attornment that does not depend on the tenant's consent, and an unregistered sale deed cannot be used to defeat the rights of a successor landlord.

1. CRP No.1414 of 2001 is filed against the judgment in R.A.No.178 of 2000, dated 05.03.2001 on the file of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. CRP No.1417 of 2001 is filed against the judgment in R.A.No.179 of 2000, dated 05.03.2001 on the file of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

2. Since, the issue in both the Civil Revision Petitions is common, hence they are heard and ordered by this Common order.

3. Having heard Sri Shraddha Gupta, the counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.Shanker, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. For the sake of convenience, both the parties shall be arrayed as arrayed in the suit as plaintiff and defendant.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein claims to be the owner and landlord of the demised premises and the premises bearing No.5-3-305/1 to 3. The petitioner contended that she has purchased the suit schedule property from Smt.Rama Devi on 23.05.1986, but due to some unavoidable circumstances on the day of registration, they could not be presented the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar for registration. The petitioner alleged that she has purchased the premises from Smt.Rama Devi for valuable consideration and was inducted into possession of the first floor on the very same day and was in possession of the mulgi bearing No.5-3-305/1 on the ground floor as a tenant previously and became the owner of the Mulgi since 23.05.1986. She further contended that before purchasing the property, she published a notice in Hindi Newspaper i.e., “Milap” calling for objection from the general public and the respondents herein have not raised any objections at that point of time, though they alleged to hold an agreement to sell in their favor. It is further contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and that the petitioner is not liable to pay any rent to the respondents.

6. The revision petitioner failed to pay the monthly rents from 01.06.1990 to 31.10.1991 for 17 months amounting to Rs.13,600/- towards the rent to each mulgi, subsequently, legal notice was served on 06.06.1990 to pay the rent and evict the suit schedule property. The respondents preferred petition before III Addl.Rent Controller Court, Hyderabad and on 17.04.2000, the Rent Controller Court allowed the petition and directed the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over the suit scheduled property. Thereafter, revision petitioner herein preferred Rent Appeal, vide R.A. No.178 of 2000, before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following points for consideration:

1. “Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent is in existence or not?

2. Whether the denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondent with respect of the partition schedule premises bonafide.

3. Whether the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rent from 01.06.1990 @ 800/- per month.?”

8. The trial Court after perusing the entire material on record has dismissed the appeal on 05.03.2001, upholding the order passed by the Court of Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision petitions are filed on the following ground that the lower appellant Court as well as Tribunal have wrongly come to conclusion on presumptions and assumption. The appellant Court ought to have seen that the vendor of the respondents had already execu