JUDGMENT
C.K. Prasad, J.
1.This is defendant’s second appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of reversal.
2. Plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,177/- XIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur, by Judgment and Decree dated 9-7-1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 75-B/82 dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by judgment and decree dated 13th July, 1989 allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. Defendant being aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal by order dated 2-1-1990, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :-
(i) “Whether the suit was bad for not joining Shri B. K. Tiwari, advocate, as party in the suit?
(ii) Whether the Court below was right in passing a decree for arrears of rent as well as for the rent prior to the date of sale executed in favour of the respondents dated 12-2-1981 Ex. P-6?”
3. According to plaintiffs, a portion of the house bearing No. 208 (old No. 1/92) shown in the map attached to the plaint was purchased by him from Subash Banerjee and S. K. Bhatia. According to the plaintiffs, defendant is living in the said accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- from 9-7-1979 after the same was vacated by S. K. Bhatia. Plaintiff’s case further is that defendant paid a sum of Rs. 100/- as rent for the month of July 1979 and after the payment of balance rent of Rs. 67/- of the month of July 1979, tenancy was to commence from 1st of every month and to come to an end on the last day of month. If the assertion of plaintiffs that after the aforesaid payment, defendant did not make any payment of rent in spite of several demands. Plaintiffs gave notice to the defendant for payment of rent on 12-10-1981 for the rent due from 9-7-1979 to 1-10-1981 totaling Rs. 6,142/- to the defendants but the defendant did not pay the rent. On the aforesaid premises, plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 6,142/-.
4. Defendant denied the allegations made by plaintiff and his stand is that he has not taken suit accommodation on monthly rent of Rs. 225/-. He has specifically denied that plaintiffs are his landlord, as also the assertion of the plaintiffs that he has paid Rs. 100/- as rent of the month of July 1979. His further plea is that he is the tenant of one Shri V. K. Tiwari since July 1979 at the monthly rent of Rs. 350/- and he has paid the rent to said Tiwari. His further assertion is that the plaintiffs have filed the suit on false and concocted grounds to demonstrate their title over the suit accommodation.
5. On analysis of the evidence, the trial Court found that plaintiffs do not have title over the suit accommodation. Trial Court further held that Shri B. K. Tiwari, is not a necessary party. However, the lower appellate Court held that plaintiff are the owners of the property and are entitled for decree for arrears of rent. Lower appellate Court, however, did not go into the question about the non-joinder of B. K. Tiwari as a party, but decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.
6. Shri K.N. Agrawal, appearing on behalf of appellant very fairly states that the view taken by the trial Court that Shri B. K. Tiwari is not a necessary party, cannot be assailed and he does not press the first substantial question of law. Shri Agrawal however, submits that according to plaintiffs own showing, the sale deed was registered in their favour on 12-2-1981 (Ex.P.6) and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree for arrears of rent, prior to the date of sale i.e. 12-2-1981.
7. Shri Shroti, however, appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents submits that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and their vendors namely Shri S. Banerjee and Shri S.K. Bhatia on 22-6-1978 (Ex. P-A) and according to the said agreement, plaintiffs came in possession of the suit accommodation and the agreement itself contemplated that either plaintiffs can live in the same or let out the same on rent. He submits that in view of the specific agreement between the plaintiffs and their vendors, plaintiffs are entitled to get the rent from the defendant from the said date.
8. Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for rights and liabilities of buyer and seller. Here, in the present case, the plaintiffs claimed rent for the period 9-7-1979 to 13-9-1981 whereas the registered sale deed in their favour was executed on 12-12-1981. According to Shri Agrawal plaintiffs shall not be entitled to get the decree for arrears of rent prior to 12-12-1981 whereas according to Shri Shroti, as the agreement to sell was entered into on 26-6-1978 with a stipulation that the plaintiffs can let out the premises on rent, they are entitled for rent for the period subsequent to the aforesaid date. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller is governed by Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 55(4)(a) which is relevant for the purpose, reads as follows :-
Section 55 Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller. – In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immovable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold :-
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) The seller is entitled –
(a) to the rents and profits of the property till the ownership thereof passes to the buyer;
(b) xxx xxx xxx
9. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the seller is entitled to the rents and profits of the property till the ownership thereof passes to the buyer. In law, a transferee cannot claim that as the corpus has been transferred to him, the rent accrued prior to the transfer shall also be deemed to have been transferred. A transferee shall be entitled for the arrears of rent only in a case when he shows that the same has also been specifically assigned. Section 55(4)(a) of the Act holds the field in the absence of stipulation to the contrary. In my opinion, if the transferee is assigned arrears of rent through a specific agreement between the transferer and transferee, there is no impediment in buyer getting the rent prior to the date of registration of sale deed. Here, in the present case, on facts, it has been found that the agreement to sell was entered into on 26-6-1978 which inter alia provided for induction of the tenant on rent. There being specific contract between the plaintiffs and their vendor, plaintiffs shall be entitled to rent prior to 12-2-1981. Substantial question of law framed is thus answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant.
10. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.