B.S. RAIKOTE, J.

(1) THIS revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4th October 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram on S.C. Suit No. 81 of 1988 on his file. The petitioner claims to be the owner and landlord of the premises in question. According to the petitioner he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10-2-1984 from one Jupudi Ammaji alias Hymasundari (filed as Ex. A-1). According to the petitioner, his vendor Hymasundari got the property from her mother-in-law Jupudi Sesharatnam under a settlement deed dated 31-7-1957, filed in the suit as Ex. A-2 and on the basis of the sale deed Ex. A-1 he filed the present suit for recovery of rent of Rs. 1260/-, at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month, for 36 months from 10-7-85 to 10-7-88, from the respondent.

(2) THE respondent-defendant filed a written statement contending that he was a tenant of the suit premises (shop) for the last 30 to 40 years under one Jupudi Kesavarao and he had been paying rents to him. There was a previous litigation between Jupudi ammaji alias Hymasundari and himself in R.C.C. 7 of 1980 and the said proceedings ended in his favour. The plaintiff also filed. A.33/86 in O.S. No. 9/80 to implead him as a party and it was dismissed. The tenant further contended that because of the judgment in those proceedings, the petitioner cannot file the present suit and the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. He further contended that the real owner and landlord of the suit premises is Jupudi kesavarao or his wife in whose favour there was a settlement-deed in respect of the suit property and as such, the plaintiff is not the landlord; nor he has attorned the tenancy in his favour. He further submitted that the plaintiff would be entitled to the arrears of rent provided he gets a decree from the competent Court as to his title. Therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3) ON the pleadings raised by both the parties, the Court below framed the only point -- whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. On consideration of the material on record and also on the principle that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief as prayed for since the tenant has not attorned the tenancy in his favour, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the original plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.

(4) THE parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranking in the suit itself as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience.

(5) IN order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 deposing that the tenant attorned the tenancy in his favour orally in the presence of Chitikala kesiraju who is examined as P.W.1 and also in the presence of Ismail (P.W.3 ). At the time of attainment, there was one more person by name Irrinki Seshagiri Rao who has not been examined in this case. The plaintiff also examined one more witness by name M. Kannaiah. He also filed a bunch of demand notices issued by the Municipality and the tax receipts (vide Ex,a-3); endorsement of the Municipality when he sought for mutation (vide Ex. A-4); a bunch of receipts (Ex. A-5) showing payment of electricity charges by him; Ex. A-9 certified copy of the relevant entry in the mutation register pertaining to Shop No. 22-15-110 and some other documents. But the Court below dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that since the defendant had not attorned the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff, he was not liable to pay the rent to the plaintiff. In view of this conclusion, the Court below did not consider the effect of the other documents on file. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner contends that the plaintiff could not have been non-suited on the basis of the principle of attornment. Earlier, the name of the Counsel for the respondent was not printed. Therefore, I directed the office to print the name of Sri B. Nareshkumar and accordingly his name was printed. Heard learned Counsel for both sides.

(6) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners filed C.M.P. No. 9929/91 requesting this Court to receive a registered copy of the settlement deed dated 16-5-1941 executed by Jupudi Kesava Rao in favour of Jupudi Sesharatnam. That application I have taken up for consideration along with the main revision petition.

(7) IN support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner heavily placed reliance on Section 109 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882; a judgment of the kerala High Court reported in Ms. Hajee k. Assainar and Co. v. Chacko Joseph AIR 1984 Ker. 113 [LQ/KerHC/1983/355] and also a judgment of the madras High Court reported in Munavar basha v. V. Narayana AIR 1961 Mad. 200 [LQ/MadHC/1960/152] and contended that whenever a purchaser has acquired title on the basis of a sale deed or valid transfer, the tenant of the premises so purchased would automatically become the tenant of the new purchaser. There need not be any kind of attornment by the tenant in favour of the new purchaser. Neither section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act nor any other provisions of the Transfer of property Act provide for an attornment to be made by such tenant in favour of the purchaser. He further contends that under common law of England, an attornment by the lessee to the assignee was necessary to complete the assignment or transfer of landlords interest unless such assignment was by will, and after Law of Property Act, 1925, such attornment was dispensed with even in England. He further submits that so far as India is concerned the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not provide for such attornment. Therefore, the only reason assigned by the Court below for non-suiting the plaintiff - that there was no attornment by the tenant in favour of the plaintiff is untenable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously supported the Judgment and decree impugned herein.

(8) HAVING regard to the controversy raised in the case, the important point that is required to be decided in this case is whether the plaintiff has proved his case of the alleged attornment by the respondent in favour of the plaintiff. The second point is that if there was no attornment of tenancy by the respondent in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff can be non-suited on this account alone.

(9) IN the instant case, the plaintiff claims to have purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 10-2-1984 from jupudi Ammaji @ Hyma Sundari vide under ex. A-1. The case of the petitioner is that hyma Sundari was the original owner and on the basis of the said purchase made by him he has become the owner of the same and, accordingly the landlord. However, the respondent denied the title of the plaintiff and his vendor. He also stated that he has not attorned tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit for the arrears of the rent. What is meant by attornment is elaborately discussed in the judgment of the High Court of Madras reported in "munavar Basha v. V. Narayan" (supra) with reference to the english and Indian Law as under: "in a very early English decision Cornish v. Searell, (1828) 8 B and C 471, at page 476 Holroyd,., observed : "the attornment is the act of the tenants putting one person in the place of another as his landlord". Halsbury in his Laws of England Vol. 23, 3rd Edn. page 408, observed as follows : "where the occupier is a tenant and agrees to hold of a new landlord during the currency of the agreement without any change in the terms of the tenancy, this is a mere attornment". "attornment is the agreement of the owner of a particular estate in land to become the tenant of a person who has acquired the estate next in reversion or remainder, or the right to the rent or other services by which the land is held (Coke on Littleton 312-a ). Thus if A, being entitled to land in fee simple, grants a lease of it to B, then B is As tenant. If however A conveys his remainder to C, in this case, B does not stand in the relation of tenant to C unless he agrees or consents to become his tenant, and this consent is called an attornment". In words and phrases, Permanent Edn. Vol. IV page 798, attornment is defined as follows :"attornment is the act of recognising a new landlord. . . . An attornment is a continuation of an existing lease on the same conditions in all respects, putting another in the place of the original landlord. Any act done by a tenant whereby he recognises a change of the person to whom rent is due is an attornment, and an agreement to pay rent to an assignee of the lease is such an act. "in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 51, P. 527 it is observed:"an attornment in effect is a continuation of an existing lease, and the tenant holds on the same conditions as under the former landlord; the tenants possession is that of the new owner. . . An attornment is not the creation or initiation of a new lease, beginning on the day of attornment, since a new tenancy arises only on departure from the time and conditions in the original lease. "from the analysis made by this judgment of the High Court of Madras, it is clear that the attornment is an act of tenant to accept the transferee as his landlord. Whether the tenant has accepted the transferee as his landlord would depend either on the written contract or even by implied conduct also. Suppose if the tenant has paid the rent to the landlord, it would be a case of implied attornment. In other words, either paying or promising to pay rent to the transferee the tenant continued with occupancy under the tenancy, with notice of alienation, amounts to recognition of the purchaser as his landlord and in such a contingency it is generally stated that the tenant has attorned the tenancy in favour of the transferee.

(10) IN order to appreciate that there was an attornment in his favour, the plaintiff examined himself as P. W. I deposing that the respondent has orally attorned the tenancy in his favour. He also examined P.W. 3 Md. Ismail in whose presence the respondent had attorned his tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. He also examined one more witnesses P. W. 4 Sri M. Kannaia in this behalf. But, the Court below disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that there was oral attornment of the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff did not prove the attornment, alleged by him, the Court below dismissed the suit. But, now the contention of the petitioner is that if the petitioner establishes his title having purchased the property from the landlord of the respondent, the respondent would automatically be a tenant under the petitioner and there need not be any attomment at all. There is substance in this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 109 of the Transfer of property Act deals with such a situation where the property under alienation is a tenanted property. In order to appreciate the import of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is necessary for me to extract the same. "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 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 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 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. 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 jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased. "from a reading of this section, it is clear that where the lessor transferred the property leased or any part thereof, the transferee, in the absence of any contract, shall possess all the rights of the lessor (transferor) and if the lessee so desires all the previous liability of the lessor the transferee may be subjected to and if there is no such contract between the lessor and the transferee regarding all the liabilities that existed prior to such transfer, the same shall be on the lessor. This section further makes it clear that in relation to the property leased, the lessor by reason of such transfer shall not cease to be subject of any liabilities pre-existing on the basis of the lease deed. However, this section says that the transferee and lessor may agree that the liabilities of the lessor would pass on to the transferee. The proviso to Section 109 further makes clear regarding the arrears of rent due to be paid by the lessee to the lessor before the transfer. If the lessee has paid all the rents due to the lessor till the date of transfer, he would not be liable to pay the same to the transferee thereafter. From this it further follows that what the lessee can elect his rights regarding the pre-existing liabilities whether he would like to claim from the lessor or from the lessee. If there is no contract to the contrary, the lessor would be liable for anything suffered and done under the lease deed by him prior to the date of transfer and on the basis of a contract such liability of the lessor may be transferred to the transferee. From this it further follows that what the lessee can elect is only to the extent of past liability till the date of transfer. In other words, there is no power or authority under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property act to the lessee not to attorn the tenancy in favour of the transferee. Suppose if it is taken that such an attomment of the tenancy by the lessee in favour of the transferee is necessary, it would lead to hazardous consequences. For the best reasons known to him, the tenant may refuse to recognise the transferee as his landlord, may be for avoiding the payment of rents or for any other liability. Then in such an event, the valid transfer that has taken place would be put to jeopardy unless such transfer is prohibited by any special enactment. There are some socio economic legislations like Land Reforms Act wherein the transfer of lease-hold rights are some times prohibited and in such an event the tenant may say that he does not recognise the transferee as such transfer is invalid or contrary to law. But, where the transfer is valid, the lessee is bound by such transfer and such a transfer does not wait for the attornment by the tenant. Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be that the tenant would be a tenant under the transferee, and after such a transfer, he would be a tenant under the new landlord, of course with the same rights and liabilities as per the lease agreement. In this view of the matter, in my humble opinion the attornment by the tenant in favour of the transferee is not necessary, and the existing tenant under the lessor (transferor) would not pass on as the tenant under the transferee. In a similar circumstance, A Division Bench of Kerala high Court in M/s. Hajee K. Assainar and Co. v. Chacko Joseph (supra) after noticing the provisions under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, observed as under :"thus a transferee of the landlords 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 also protects payment of rent by the tenant to the transferor without notice of the transfer. The section does not insist that the transfer of the landlords rights can take effect only if the tenant attorns. Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the landlords rights. This seems to be the correct position, if we delve into the legislative history as well. Formerly under the Common Law of england, attornment by the lessee to the assignee was necessary to complete the assignment of the landlords interest, unless the assignment was by will. This seems to have been recognised in an old decision in 1870 in Ram Lall Misser v. Chimderbullee (1870) 13 WR 228). Sections 9 and 10 of the Statute 4, 5 and anne c. 3, (now re-enacted in Section 151 (1) of the Law of Property Act, 1925) dispensed with such attornment. Our Act also does not insist on a fresh attornment (see Mulla on the T. P. Act sixth edition ). If the transfer of the landlords right is valid, and even if the tenant has not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease continues, the lessee will be entitled to the statutory protection under the Rent control Act. He cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of that act. "even from this judgment of the Kerala High court also it is clear that if the landlord has validly transferred the demise premises in favour of a transferee, even if the tenant has not attorned in favour of the transferee, such a tenant continues to be the tenant under a transferee, but subject to statutory protection under the rent control legislations that he cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of such legislation. This interpretation is consistent with the definition of "landlord" provided by the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to "rent Control act"), Section 2 (vi) of the said Act defines landlord as under: (1) The owner of a building and (2) includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and other or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or (3) who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant. From this definition, it is clear that landlord means the owner of the building and includes a person who is receiving or "entitled to receive the rent" of the building whether on his own account or on behalf of another person. The transferee from the landlord of the tenant would be a person "entitled to receive the rent" after such a valid transfer on his own account. Thus, such transferee becomes landlord even as per the definition of the term landlord given under the Rent control Act and hence the tenant cannot say he wont attorn his tenancy in favour of transferee. To the same effect is also the law declared by a Division Bench of the High court of Patna reported in Brij Bihari v. Deoki devi AIR 1978 Patna 117 wherein it is held that:"whenever there is an assignment of the interest of a lessor or the interest of a lessee in a lease a new relationship comes into existence between the two sets of persons, one of whom was not party to the original agreement. In England at common law, an assignment was not complete without attornment by the lessee to the assignee of the original lessor, except when the assignment was by will. Later it was realised that this necessity of an attornment by the lessee was a restriction on the right of a lessor to transfer and assign his interest in a lease and so this necessity of attornment was done away by legislative interference. This Law of Property Act, 1925, which replaced the earlier Statute, has also made it clear that in such a situation, the attornment by the lessee was not necessary. In India, in view of Section 109 of the Act which says that if the lessor transfers the property leased, the transferee in absence of a contract to contrary shall possess all the rights, and if the lessee so elects, be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property so transferred, there is no requirement of attornment by the lessee. In view of this provision, the assignee of the lessor has against the lessee all the rights that the lessor had and can enforce not only covenants but even conditions. The right to receive rent from the lessee in terms of the lease is one of such rights which passes to the assignee and a lessee cannot say that he is not bound to pay the same as he used to pay merely because there is no privity of contract between him and the assignee who is a now the landlord. The matter will be different if subsequent to the assignment, any fresh contract is entered into between the new assignee and the lessee to alter the terms of the lease, including the date of the commencement of the monthly tenancy and rate of rent which will be payable. In view of landlord and Tenant (15th edition) by hill and Redman the rights and liabilities of successor to reversion have been discussed at page 638 and it has been pointed out with reference to relevant rules that, (i) a conveyance of the reversion is valid without attornment by the tenant, (ii) the benefit of a covenant entered into by a lessee which directly concerns the land passes to an assignee of the reversion unless a contrary intention is expressed in the lease or the assignment, (Hi) the burden of a covenant entered into by a lessor which directly concerns the land passes to an assignee of the reversion unless a contrary intention is expressed in the lease or the assignment, and (iv) the benefit and burden of such covenants pass to a lessee of the reversion, and the assignee of the reversion of part of the demised land takes the benefit and the burden of such covenants in so far as they affect that land. Under the Indian law also rights and liabilities of successor to reversion are the same. The plaintiffs as assignees, in my opinion, in absence of any fresh agreement between them and the original defendant, became entitled to the rights which the original lessor, the vendor of the plaintiffs, possessed. "for all these reasons, I have to conclude that neither under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act nor under the provisions of A.P. Rent Control Act there is any provision for attornment of the tenancy by the tenant in favour of the transferee and such transferee.