Attornment of tenancy is not a pre-condition for the landlady to initiate proceedings against the tenant, as established by Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and relevant case laws.

2. Originally the deceased K.M.Gopal, an advocate, was in occupation of the petition schedule premises as tenant under the vendor of the sale deed dated 16. 1993 in favour of the Manimegalai, the petitioner in RCOP.No.18 of 2001. According to the petitioner/landlady in RCOP.No.18 of 2001 previous tenant K.M.Gopal was in occupation of the petition schedule building for a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. After K.M.Gopal, the present respondents 2 & 3 were in possession of the petition schedule building along with the first Respondent P.Shanmugam and R1 to R3 are advocates. R1 – P.Shanmugam died pending petition and R2 – K.Balakrishnan had already vacated the premises and now R3 is in occupation of the petition schedule building.

3. According to the petitioner, R3 has committed willful default in payment of rent and that the building is required for is own business. The first respondent had filed a counter, which was adopted by R2 & R3. The first respondent would admit that one Gopal and R1 were in occupation of the building as tenants, but subsequent to the sale deed dated 16. 1993 in favour of the land-lady the tenancy was not attorned in favour of the respondent and there was no landlady tenant relationship exist between the petitioner and the respondents. The specific defence taken by the first respondent was that the previous landlords son Krishnaraj had borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the first respondent and K.M.Gopal and agreed to adjust the interest of 2% pa towards the admitted rent of Rs.600/- pm and on that score they would contend that there is no arrears of rent.

4. Before the learned Rent Controller, Natarajan, the husband of Manimegalai (Petitioner) was examined as P.W.1 and 3rd respondent – contesting respondent M.Natarajan was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 were marked on the side of the petitioner and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary let in before him, the learned Rent Controller has accepted the defence of the 3rd respondent as to the fact that there was no landlady tenant relationship between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and that there was no arrears of rent and that there was no necessity to go into the question whether the petition schedule premises is required for the petitioner for his personal use, had dismissed the petition filed by the landlady. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the landlady preferred an appeal in RCA.No.1 of 2004 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Pollachi. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority taking a different view from that of the view taken by the learned Rent Controller has allowed the appeal thereby set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller giving one month time to the 3rd respondent to vacate and handover possession to the petitioner, which necessitated the 3rd respondent – tenant to prefer this revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and considered their respective submissions.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner taking this Court through the evidence of P.W.1 would contend that there was no notice admittedly issued by the landlady after taking Ex.A.2-sale deed in her favour in respect of the petition schedule property from the original owners eldest son Krishnaraj and there was no attornment of tenancy, which was not taken note of by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

7. To answer this point, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein relying on Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, would contend that attornment of tenancy is not a pre-condition for the landlady to initiate proceedings against the tenant. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 runs as follows:- "If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transfe