Skip to content


Satti Krishna Reddy Vs. Nallamilli Venkata Reddy and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Leave Petition No. 2257 of 1977
Judge
Reported in(1982)3SCC364
AppellantSatti Krishna Reddy
RespondentNallamilli Venkata Reddy and anr.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order of AP High Court at Hyderabad in CRP No 1307 of 1975, decided on May 4, 1977
Excerpt:
- [ p.n. bhagawati, j.] -- rent control and eviction — arrears of rent — held, do not lose their character and become an actionable claim on assignment — eviction proceedings can therefore be maintained by successor landlord on ground of arrears of rent -- there is, therefore, no doubt that in the present case respondent 1st who was the assignee of the claim for arrears of rent from the predecessor landlady was entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner and the arrears of rent were due from the petitioner to respondent 1 at the date when the application was made before the rent controller by respondent 1st for an order of eviction against the petitioner......in daya debi v. chapala debi1. that decision has taken the view that when a claim for arrears of rent is assigned by a to b, it loses the character of a claim for rent as soon as it is assigned and it becomes merely an actionable claim. this view is, of course, not shared by most of the other high courts and even the calcutta high court itself in other decisions has not accepted this view. it does appear to me that this view is not correct because it is difficult to see how a claim for arrears of rent ceases to be such when it is assigned by the owner when he transfers his properties to another. so far as the tenant is concerned, the amount remains payable by him to the successor landlord as arrears of rent because that is his own liability and it does not acquire any other character......
Judgment:

P.N. Bhagawati, J.

1. This special leave petition is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court confirming an order of eviction passed against the petitioner. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court, but there is one point to which I must refer, and that arises out of a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Daya Debi v. Chapala Debi1. That decision has taken the view that when a claim for arrears of rent is assigned by A to B, it loses the character of a claim for rent as soon as it is assigned and it becomes merely an actionable claim. This view is, of course, not shared by most of the other High Courts and even the Calcutta High Court itself in other decisions has not accepted this view. It does appear to me that this view is not correct because it is difficult to see how a claim for arrears of rent ceases to be such when it is assigned by the owner when he transfers his properties to another. So far as the tenant is concerned, the amount remains payable by him to the successor landlord as arrears of rent because that is his own liability and it does not acquire any other character. And so also when the successsor landlord claims the amount assigned to him his cause of action against the tenant would be for arrears of rent because there is no other basis on which he found his cause of action against the tenant. There is, therefore, no doubt that in the present case respondent 1st who was the assignee of the claim for arrears of rent from the predecessor landlady was entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner and the arrears of rent were due from the petitioner to respondent 1 at the date when the application was made before the Rent Controller by respondent 1st for an order of eviction against the petitioner. The special leave petition is accordingly rejected but in view of the fact that the petitioner has been in possession of the premises for a considerable time, I direct that the order for eviction passed against the petitioner shall not be executed against him until May 30, 1978 and on the petitioner filing an affidavit in this Court on or before July 25, 1977 undertaking to this Court that he will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to respondent 1st on or before that date. In case such affidavit is not filed by the petitioner, the order for eviction shall become executable forthwith.

2. Mr A. Subba Rao to file Vakalat and appearance immediately.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //