DR. AMBICA PRASAD versus MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 08-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 93 
DR. AMBICA PRASAD 
v. 
MD. ALAM AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 3391 of2015) 
APRILOS,2015 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972: s.2(c)- Eviction 
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 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
3391of20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.