Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

HINDI

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 32
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 33
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 34
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 35
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 36
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1181184',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
			'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> HINDI </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1181184',
		(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs Dr Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Citation 1181184 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1181184',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013 ',
		'appellant' => 'Geeta Devi and Others ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 22 -

Comparative Citations:
2015 AIR(Raj) 117, 2015 (2) RCR(Rent) 364,',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2015-03-10',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.</p><p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.</p><p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.</p><p> HINDI </p><p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.</p><p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.</p><p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.</p><p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.</p><p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.</p><p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -</p><p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;</p><p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.</p><p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."</p><p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-</p><p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."</p><p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.</p><p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.</p><p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -</p><p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."</p><p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.</p><p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369</p><p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -</p><p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-</p><p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'</p><p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-</p><p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."</p><p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.</p><p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-</p><p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."</p><p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.</p><p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '</p><p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.</p><p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-</p><p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.</p><p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."</p><p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1181184',
	(int) 1 => 'geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1181184/geeta-devi-vs-surendramal-mertiya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1)(f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No. 5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> HINDI ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'T the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term 'Landlord' in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as 'landlord' as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 8. Though Order 41, Rule 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -',
	(int) 10 => '<p> "109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not he liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term 'landlord' has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word 'Landlord' is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under :-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> "(iii). "Landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant."',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realise rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs and Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 344 : 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -',
	(int) 18 => '<p> "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given."',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorised by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term `landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas reported in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 584 : 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: -',
	(int) 22 => '<p> "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 696 : 1997 (5) SC 363 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus :-',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 'It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.'',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishore, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 310and held as under :-',
	(int) 25 => '<p> "18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob. reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned herein-above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra."',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-',
	(int) 28 => '<p> "(c) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant."',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person, `who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord. '',
	(int) 31 => '<p> 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. reported in 1981(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 74 : AIR 1981 SC 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad v. Masoodbi reported in 1991(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 5 : AIR 1991 MP 23, dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this :-',
	(int) 33 => '<p> "This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1981(1) R.C.R (Rent) 423.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The above statutory consequences shall follow "in absence of a contract to the contrary". This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression 'in the absence of a contract to the contrary appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-I that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail."',
	(int) 35 => '<p> 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today,, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.',
	(int) 37 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 38
$i = (int) 37
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Court	Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On	Mar-10-2015
Case Number	Civil Second Appeal No. 191 of 2013
Judge	The Honourable Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari
Appellant	Geeta Devi and Others
Respondent	Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others

Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others - Court Judgment