DR. AMBICA PRASADversusMD. ALAM AND ANOTHER

                      [2015] 4 S.C.R. 93



                   DR. AMBICA PRASAD                              A
                               v.
                 MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER

               (Civil Appeal No. 3391 of2015)                     B

                       APRILOS,2015

           [M. Y. EQBAL AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.]

 Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972: s.2(c)- Eviction
                                                                  c
 suit - Claim of plaintiff-appellant that he became owner of
 the tenanted property by virtue of exchange deeds executed
 by his brother who was the original owner - Dismissal of
 eviction suit on the ground that the appellant was not landlord D
 of the suit property-Held: There was evidence to show that
 respondent-tenant on many occasions went to appellant to
 receive rent - Respondent was paying electricity and other
 charges of the tenanted premises to the appellant - The
 ownership of the appellant by virtue of exchange deed was E
,neither denied nor disputed by respondent-tenant-Appellant
·entitled to evict the tenant- Transfer of Property Act, 1882-
 s. 109- Rent control and eviction.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s. 109 - Held: Transferee of F
the 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 - s. 109 does not require that the
transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the
tenant attoms to him - Attomment by the tenant is not G
necessary to confer validity of the transfer of landlord's right.

       Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The definition of 'landlord' under Section        H
                             93
94       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A 2(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 is
  couched in a very wide language, according to which
  not only the owner but also any person receiving rent,
  whether on his own account or on behalf of or for the
  benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian,
B or receiver for any other person, is also the landlord.
  However, for the purpose of eviction of a tenant on the
  ground of personal need or reasonable requirement, one
  must show that he is the owner of the building. [Para
C 13and14] [102-G-H; 103-A]

      M.M. Quasim vs. ManoharLal Sharma &Ors. AIR 1981
      SC 113- referred to.

         2. The finding of the High Court to the effect that
D there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant was
  not in accordance with the true meaning of the term
  'landlord'. On the contrary, the High Court proceeded
  on the basis that the relationship of 'landlord and tenant'
  has not been established although the ownership of the
E appellant by virtue of the deed of exchange has neither
  been denied nor been disputed by the respondent-
  tenant. Admittedly, the respondent-tenant was paying
  electricity and other charges of the tenanted premises
F to the appellant. As per Section 109 of the Transfer of
  Property Act, after the transfer of lessor's right in favour
  of the transferee, the latter gets all rights and liabilities
  of the lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy. The
  Section does not insist that transfer will take effect only
G when the tenant attorns. It is well settled that a
  transferee of the 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
H
 DR. AMBICA PRASAD v. MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER               95


of the landlord can take effect only if the tenant attorns A
to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to
confer validity of the transfer of the landlord's rights.
Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a notice
under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by
the transferor landlord would be proper and so also B
the suit for ejectment. [Paras 16 an118) [105-E-H; 106-
A, H; 107-A-C]

       3. The respondent-tenant on many occasions
approached the appellant, the transferee, owner and the C
landlord to receive the rent. Further, admittedly, the
electricity charges of the tenanted premises were paid
by the tenant to the present appellant. Non-
consideration of subsequent tenancy agreement D
executed by the erstwhile owner namely the brother of
the appellant will not come in the way of the appellant to
seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal
necessity as also on the ground of non-payment of rent.
The approach of the High Court reversing the appellate E
court's finding cannot be sustained in law. [Para 19) [107-
D-F]

                  Case Law Reference

AIR 1981 SC 113           referred to.        Para 15     F

     CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
3391of2015

     From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2014 of the G
Gauhati High Court at Guwahati, Assam in CRP No. 161 of
2013

      Jaideep Gupta, Santosh Kumar for the Appellant.
                                                          H
96          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 4 S.C.R.



A           Arunabh Chowdhury, Karma Dorjee, Gainilung Panmei
     (for Anupam Lal Das) for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

8            M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
  judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 of the Gauhati High
  Court whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents
C was allowed and the eviction suit filed by the appellant was
  dismissed.

             3. The litigation between the parties commenced when
     the appellant filed an eviction suit against Abdul Karim, the
     father of the respondents. The case of the appellant was that
0
     he had became the owner of the suit property by virtue of two
     exchange deeds executed on 23.04.1975 with his brother PW3
     Ranjeet Prasad, the original owner. In 1968, before the
     execution of the said exchange deed, PW3 Ranjeet Prasad
E    was sai.d to have let one of the rooms in the building in the suit
     property to Rahim Baksh, the father of Abdul Karim and the
     grandfather of the respondents. However, even after the
     execution of the exchange deed, PW3 Ranjeet Prasad was
     stated to have continued collecting rent from the tenants of the
F    suit property including Rahim Baksh and on Rahim's death,
     his son Abdul Karim till February, 2007 with the consent of the
     appellant. In 2007, the appellant was stated to have taken over
     the affairs of the suit property, mutated his name as the owner
     and requested Abdul Karim to execute a fresh agreement with
G    him. The appellant contended that Abdul Karim had not only
     failed to execute a fresh agreement but also failed to pay the
     rent except for the electricity bills. The appellant also cited
     bonafide need of the suit property for the purpose of opening
H    a medical clinic being a retired surgeon. The appellant hence
 DR. AMBICA PRASAD v. MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER                     97
               [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

prayed for the eviction of Abdul Karim.                         A

        4. Defendant Abdul Karim filed written statement
denying all the allegations and alleged that PW3 Ranjeet
Prasad had executed tenancy agreement dated 28.12.1968
in favour of Rahim Baksh and later on executed tenancy B
agreement dated 20.05.2006 in his favour. He denied being
informed of the exchange deed dated 23.04.1975 and
contended that Ranjeet Prasad was his landlord and not the
appellant. The defendant Abdul Karim alleged that since they
refused to accept the rent from him from March, 2007 onwards, C
the defendant deposited the rent in court. The defendant prayed
for the dismissal of the suit.

         5. The trial court noted that PW3 Ranjeet Prasad had
represented himself to be the landlord in the agreement dated D
20.05.2006 and in the rent receipts and also filed a suit for
eviction against one of the tenants in the suit property in the
capacity of a landlord. PW3 was noted to have never stated
being the representative of the appellant or there being a E
property exchange. Even if it was assumed that he had received
the electricity charges, the appellant was held to have failed to
prove himself as the landlord as the appellant had not produced
any evidence of having received rent from any of tenants. The
mutation entry in his name was held to be not proof of title in F
the suit property, Considering the deposition of Abdul Karim
as DW1, wherein he stated that the appellant had refused to
accept the rent from him, the trial court held that the appellant
had waived his right to be called a landlord. The trial court held
that PW3 Ranjeet Prasad was the landlord of the suit property G
under section 2(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control
Act, 1972 (in short, "Rent Act"). The trial court dismissed the
suit, rejecting plaintiff-appellant's contention thatAbdul Karim
had defaulted in the payment of rent and that he needed the
                                                                H
98         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 4 S.C.R.



A    suit property for bonafide use on the grounds that the appellant
     was not the landlord of the suit property and Abdul Karim had
     been admittedly depositing the rent in the court.

           6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the
B appellant preferred an appeal before the District Court. The
   appellate court noted that the ownership of the suit property
   has been proved in the light of the exchange deed, which
   remained unchallenged by the defendant and supported by
   PW3 Ranjeet Prasad. The appellate court further noted that
C the plaintiff served notice requesting Abdul Karim to attorn the
   appellant as the landlord and pay the rent to him. The appellate
   court, therefore, held that the appellant is the landlord of the
  suit property considering the deposition of Abdul Karim that
  the appellant had refused to accept the rent from him, the
0
  deposition of PW3 Ranjeet Prasad that he had directed all
  the tenants to pay the rent to the appellant from March, 2007
  onwards and the admission of the respondent no. 1 (DW2)
  son of Abdul Karim, that he was paying the electricity charges
E to the appellant. Abdul Karim was held to have defaulted in the
  payment of rent from March, 2007 onwards as he was
  depositing rent in the court in the name of PW3 Ranjeet Prasad
  and not the appellant despite knowing that the appellant was
  the landlord. The appellant also proved the need for bonafide
F use as he and his wife were medical practitioners wanting to
  open a clinic in the rented premises and as the defendantAbdul
  Karim owns another premises and would not hence be facing
  difficulty. Allowing the appeal, the appellate court directed the
  defendant Abdul Karim to vacate the suit property.
G
           7. Aggrieved respondents, therefore, preferred a
  revision petition before the High Court. The High Court
  observed that the appellate court has not considered the
  tenancy agreements dated 20.12.1968 and 20.05.2006, which
H
 DR. AMBICA PRASAD v. MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER                        99
               [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

were also not mentioned in the depositions of the appellant A
(PW1) and Ranjeet Prasad (PW3) and the plaint. The High
Court upheld the trial court findings regarding the various
instances when PW3 represented himself as the landlord.
Observing that there was no conveyance of title after the
execution of the agreementdated 20.05.2006, the ~igh Court B
opined that the appellant could not be held to be the owner or
landlord of the suit property on the basis of the exchange deed
dated 23.04.1975. The High Court observed that the
definitions of the terms 'tenant' and 'landlord' were not related C
to ownership of the suit property. PW3 Ranjeet Prasad was
held to be the landlord of defendant Abdul Karim considering
the agreements dated 20.12.1968 arid 20.05.2006 and that
Ranjeet Prasad had filed eviction suits as a landlord. Once
landlord-tenant relationship existed between the PW3 Ranjeet D
Prasad and the defendantAbdul Karim, the same should have
been determined only as per the provisions of the Rent Control
Act. Holding that t~ere was no need to give a finding regarding
default in the payment of rent or bonafide requirement when
there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the appellant E
and the defendant Abdul Karim, the High Court allowed the
revision petition filed by the respondents-tenants and
dismissed the suit for eviction filed by the appellant.

         8. Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the     F
plaintiff.

       9. While reversing the appellate court judgment, the
High Court in paragraph nos. 11 and 13 of the impugned order
held as under:-                                              G

    "11. This revision petition arises out of a claim of relief
  . under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control
    Act, 1972. Unlike general law governing tenancy, this Act
    confers a statutory status on tenant and on attainment of     H
100       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A      such status a tenant earns protection guaranteed under
       Section 5 of this Act. No tenant under this Act can be
       evicted without a decree of Court. The landlord, therefore,
       is duty bound to obtain a decree from court by
       establishing the conditions precedent laid down under
B      Section 5 referred to above. The foundation of such a
       suit is relationship of landlord and tenant. The fact that
       there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between
       the parties is the starting point for conferring jurisdiction
      ·on a court to entertain and decide the dispute. Such fact
c
       constituting landlord-tenant relationship, therefore, is a
       jurisdictional fact and not a mere fact and as such High
       Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section
        115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is duty bound to
D      examine as to whether such a finding arrived at by the
       learned Court or Courts below is tenable and/or based
       on materials on record.

      13. These aspects are no doubt relevant forthe purpose
E     of adjudicating a jurisdictional fact as to landlord tenant
      relationship in a proceeding under Section 5 of the
      Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.Apparently,
      these relevant aspects were not considered by the
      learned appellate court. The finding of the learned
F     appellate court, therefore, on issue No.4 is vitiated by
      non-consideration of relevant aspect and non-
      consideration of exhibits Ka, Kha and Gha. The finding
      of the first appellate court that there is a landlord and
      tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant
G     is liable to be held as perverse, inasmuch as, plaintiff
      has failed to meet the challenges thrown by the defendam
      by bringing on record exhibits Ka, Kha and Gha and
      claiming that plaintiff never derived the title from Ranjeet
      Prasad subsequent to creation of tenancy in 2006. The
H
 DR. AMBICA PRASAD v. MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER                           101
               [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

  decision of appellate court, on issue No.4, therefore, is           A
  liable to be interfered with. Once it is held that there is no
  landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and
  the defendant, there is no question of giving any decision
  on the issue of default or bona-fide requirement.
  Consequently, findings of the first appellate court on these        B
  2 (two) issues are also set aside. In the result, civil revision
  petition is allowed and the impugned appellate judgment
  is set aside restoring the judgment of the learned Trial
  court."
                                                                     c
        10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties. Before coming to the conclusion, we would like to
refer to the relevant provisions of the Assam Urban Area Rent
ControlAct, 1972.
                                                                      D
       11. The expression "landlord" has been defined in
Section 2(c) of the RentActwhich reads as under:-

  "(c) Landlord" means any person who is, for the time
  being receiving, or entitled to receive rent in respect of          E
  any house whether on his own account, or on account, or
  on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person, or as a
  trustee, guardian, or receiver for any other person; and
  includes, in respect of his subtenant, a tenant who has
  sub-let any house and includes every person not being a             F
  tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord."

       12. Section 5 of the Act creates a bar against the
passing or execution of a decree or order for ejection. Section
5 reads as under:-                                                   G

  "5. ( 1) No order or decree for the recovery of possession
  of any house shall be made or executed by any Court so
  long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable
                                                                     H
102      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 4 S.C.R.



A     under this Act and performs the conditions of the tenancy:

      Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in a
      suit or proceedings for eviction of the tenant from the
      house:-
B
      (a) Where the tenant has done anything contrary to the
      provisions of clause {m), clause (o) or clause (p) of
      Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or to
      the spirit of the aforesaid clause in areas where the said
c     Act does not apply, or

      (b) Where the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is
      a nuisance of an annoyance to the occupiers of the
      adjoining or neighbouring houses, or
D
      (c) Where the house is bonafide required by the landlord
      either for purposes of repairs or rebuilding, or for his own
      occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose
      benefit the house is held, or whether the landlord can
E     show any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory
      by the Court, or

      (d) Where the tenant sublets the house or any part thereof
      or otherwise transfers his interest in the house or any
      part thereof without permission in writing from the
F
      landlord, or

      (e) Where the tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due
      from him in respect of the house within a fortnight of its
      falling due, or
G
      (f) Where the tenant has built, acquired or been allotted
      a suitable residence."

          13. From the definition of 'landlord', it is clear that the
H
 DR. AMBICA PRASAD v. MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER 103
               [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

definition is couched in a very wide language, according to A
which not only the owner but also any person receiving rent,
whether on his own account or on behalf of or for the benefit of
any other person or as a trustee, guardian, or receiver for any
other person, is also the landlord.
                                                                 B
        14. However, for the purpose of eviction of a tenant on
the ground of personal need or reasonable requirement, one
must show that he is the owner of the building.

         15. A similar question came for consideration before    c
a three Judges Bench of this Court in the case of M.M. Quasim
vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 113. The
matter related to the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 1947. In the Bihar Rent Act, the definition of
expression 'landlord' is similar as that of Assam Rent Act. D
Further the ground for eviction of personal necessity is also
similar to that of the Assam Act. Considering these provisions,
this Court held:-

  "14 ... Therefore, while taking advantage of the enabling      E
  provision, enacted in Section 11 (1 )(c), the person
  claiming possession on the ground of his reasonable
  requirement of the leased building must show that he is
  a landlord in the sense that he is owner of the building
  and has a right to occupy the same in his own right. A         F
  mere rent collector, though may be included in the
  expression "landlord" in its wide amplitude, cannot be
  treated as a landlord for the purposes of Section 11 (1)(c).
  This becomes manifestly clear from the explanation
                                                                 G
  appended to the clause. By restricting the meaning of
  expression "landlord" for the purpose of Section 11 (1 )(c),
  the legislature manifested its intention namely that
  landlord alone can seek eviction on the ground of his
  personal requirement if he is one who has a right against      H
104      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015] 4 S.C.R.



A     the whole world to occupy the building himself and exclude
      any one holding a title lesser than his own. Such landlord
      who is an owner and who would have a right to occupy
      the building in his own right, can seek possession for his
      own use. The latter part of the section envisages a
B     situation where the landlord is holding the building for
      the benefit of some other person but in that case landlord
      can seek to evict tenant not for his personal use but for
      the personal requirement of that person for whose benefit
      he holds the building. The second clause contemplates
c     a situation of trustees and cesti que trust but when the
      case is governed by the first part of clause (c) of sub-
      section (1) of Section 11, the person claiming
      possession for personal requirement must be such a
D     landlord who wants possession for his own occupation
      and this would imply that he must be a person who has a
      right to .remain in occupation against the whole world and
      not someone who has no subsisting interest in the
      property and is merely a rent collector such as an agent,
E     executor, administrator or a receiver of the property. For
      the purposes of Section 11 (1 )( c) the expression 'landlord'
      could, therefore, mean a person who is the owner of the
      building and who has a rightto remain in occupation and
      actual possession of the building to the exclusion of
F     everyone else. It is such a person who can seek to evict
      the tenant on the ground that he requires possession in
      good faith for his own occupation. A rent collector or an
      agent is not entitled to occupy the house in his own right.
      Even if such a person be a lessor and, therefore, a
G
      landlord within the expanded inclusive definition of the
      expression landlord, nonetheless he cannot seek to evict
      the tenant on the ground that he wants to personally
      occupy the house. He cannot claim such a right against
H     the real owner and as a necessary corollary he cannot
 DR. AMBICA PRASAD v. MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER                     105
 .             [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

  seek to evict the tenant on the ground that he wants           A
  possession of the premises for his own occupation: That
  can be the only reasonable interpretation one can put on
  the ingredients of clause (c) of Section 11(1)which reads:
  "Where the building is reasonably and in good faith
  required by the landlord for his own occupation ... "          8
  Assuming that the expression "landlord" has to be
  understood with the same connotation as is spelt out by
  the definition clause, even a rem collector or a receiver
  of the property appointed by the court in bankruptcy
  proceedings would be able to evict the tenant alleging
                                                                 c
  that he wants the building for his own occupation, a right
  which he could not have claimed against the real owner.
  Therefore, the explanation to clause (c) which cuts down
  the wide amplitude of the expression "landlord" would          D
  unmistakably show that for the purposes of clause (c)
  such landlord who in the sense in which the word 'owner'
  is understood can claim as of right to the exclusion of
  everyone, to occupy the house, would be entitled to evict
  the tenant for his own occupation."                            E

        16. The High Court appears to have taken a very narrow
meaning and interpretation of the expression 'landlord' as
defined in the Assam Rent Act. The finding recorded on that
score to the effect that there exists no relationship of landlord F
and tenant is not in accordance with the true meaning of the
term 'landlord'. This aspect of the law has not been considered
by the High Court. On the contrary, the High Court proceeded
on the basis that the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' has
not been established although the ownership of the appellant G
by virtue of the deed of exchange has neither been denied nor
been disputed by the respondent-tenant. Even assuming for
the sake of argument that the elder brother of the appellant
was acting as a landlord by receiving rent, it will not debar the H
106          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 4 S.C.R.



A     original owner from filing a suit for eviction not only on the ground
      of personal necessity but also on the ground of default when it
      has come in evidence that the respondent on many occasions
      went to the appellant to pay rent but the latter refused to receive
      the rent. Moreover, admittedly, the respondent-tenant was
B     paying electricity and other charges of the tenanted premises
      to the appellant.

              17. On the question of tenancy, both the trial court and
      the High Court have not considered the provision of Section
C     109 of the Transfer of Property Act.

         "109. Rights of lessor's transferee.-lf the lessor
         transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any
         part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence
D        of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights,
         and, if the lessee so elects, be subject 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
E        liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the
         lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable
         to him:

              Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears
F        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 be
         liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.
G            The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may
         determine what proportion of the premium or rent
         reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so
         transferred, and, in case they disagree, such
         determination may be made by any Court having
H
  DR. AMBICA PRASAD v. MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER 107
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

   jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the          A
   property leased.

     18. From perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is manifest
that after the transfer of lessor's right in favour of the transferee,
the latter gets all rights and liabilities of the lessor in respect of B
sul:lsisting tenancy. The Section does not insist that transfer
will take effect only when the tenant attorns. It is well settled
that a transferee of the 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 C
not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord can take
effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by the tenant
is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the landlord's
rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a notice D
under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by the
transferor landlord would be proper and so also the suit for
ejectment.

    19. As noticed above, the respondent-tenant on many
occasions approached the appellant, the transferee, owner E
and the landlord to receive the rent. Further, admittedly, the
electricity charges of the tenanted premises were paid by the
tenant to the present appellant. Non-consideration of
subsequent tenancy agreement executed by the erstwhile F
owner namely the brother of the appellant will not come in the
way of the present appellant to seek eviction of the tenant on
the ground of personal necessity as also on the ground of non-
payment of rent. The approach of the High Court reversing
the appellate court's finding cannot be sustained in law.      G

     20. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and
 the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
·is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs:
Devika Gujral                                        Appeal allowed.   H