JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenant's second appeal from the decision of the II Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, decreeing the landlords' suit for his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The defendant-appellant Nannhey Main is the tenant of a house which was formerly evacuee property and therefore under the management of the Custodian. It was sold by the Custodian in the exercise of his powers under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1952 to one Kesari Devi who in turn sold it to the plaintiff-respondent Sheikli Mohd. Yusuf under a sale deed dated 27th October 1959 The appellant Nannhey Mian was the tenant and continued to occupy the house even after the successive transfers. On 18th of November, 1959 Kesari Devi demanded rent from the appellant at the rate of Rs. 20/- p.m. in. alleging that this was the rent fixed by the Custodian before the property was sold to her. It is important to note that the demand for rent was made by Kasari Devi after she had transfer red the house to the plaintiff-respondent Sheikh Mohd. Yusuf, and therefore fraudulent The appellant refused to pay rent at the enhanced rate and pointed out that he had challenged the Custodian's order enhancing the rent by means of a suit and that the matter was pending before the High Court in appeal. How ever he paid all the arrears of rent due at the rate o Rs. 10/- p.m. which was accepted by kesari Devi. 2. On the 25th of March 1960 kesari Devi served another notice demanding further rent from the appellant Before any reply could be sent by the appellant to this notice he received a notice he received a notice of demand from the plain tiff respondent claiming rent for the entire period after the sale in his which the rent had already been paid to kesari Devi the appellant sent a prompt reply in which he pointed out that he had already received a and he was not aware of any sale or transfer in favour of plaintiff-respondent and could pay rent only on proof of ownership by the respondent the latter instead of furnishing proof filed the suit for ejectment. 3. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that in these circumstances the tenant could not fiend' to be a defaulter and therefore no suit for ejectment could be filed without the permission of the District Magistrate. On appeal learned Civil Judge held that the appellant had notice of the transfer in favour of it the new landlord When he received demand for-rent and was liable to pay rent to him. He allowed the appeal and ordered the ejectment of the appellant who has come in this court in second appeal. 4. In my opinion the view of the lower appellate court is erroneous. The appellant was under no obligation to pay rent to the transferee unless he was satisfied that a transfer had taken place. In a recent case Kunwar Akbar Ali Khan v. Kunwar Mohammad Akbar Ali, S.A. 5382 of 1961 the question arose whether a tenant is entitled to demand proof of the transferee's title in these circumstances. It was observed in that case "If the landlord transfers the property in the accommodation without informing the tenant and the transferee demands rent from him, the tenant is entitled to demand clear proof of title from the transferee before he can be asked to stop paying rent to the old landlord. A mere assertion by the transferee that he is the landlord creates no obligation on the tenant to recognise hire and repudiate his obligations to the old landlord. The tenant is entitled to ignore a bare assertion without proof as it would expose him to the risk of paying the wrong person and refusing to pay the right person. The position is different when the old landlord himself informs the tenant that he has transferred his rights to another person and requires him to pay the rent to the transferee, for then the tenant is bound to recognise the status of the transferee and pay rent to him. He would be protected because the old landlord would be estopped from denying the transfer in any future dispute over payment of rent." 5. Applying principle to the present case, the appellant as tenant had received notice of demand and the new landlord. In such a situation -he was clearly entitled to-protect position by demanding from the new land-lord proof of title before. paying the rent. Applying principle to the present case, the appellant as tenant had received notice of demand and the new landlord. In such a situation -he was clearly entitled to-protect position by demanding from the new land-lord proof of title before. paying the rent. It is admitted that no proof of title was submitted in response to the appellant's bona fide request. In these circumstances he could not be adjudged a defaulter, Learned counsel for the respondent argued that it was the duty of the appellant after he had received a notice of demand from the new landlord to avail of the procedure under Section 7C of the Act which, according to counsel, was enacted to provide for situations like this. I do not think that under the circumstances there was any duty on the-appellant to take the trouble of going to the court-aid nicking a deposit under Section 7C. Sub-Sec.' (2) of Section 7C, on which counsel relied, runs thus: "Sec. 7C -("2). Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive, any rent referred to in sub-Sec. (1) in respect of any accommodation, the tenant may similarly deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent court or by settlement between the parties, continue, to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building." This sub-section enables the tenant to notice rent in"court whenever a bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to their so who is entitled to receive the rent. Doubt here means doubt in the mind in the tenant, But the tenant is under no obligation to act under Section 7C as soon as he received a notice of demand from a mere stranger who alleges that he is the landlord of the accommodation. A doubt arises only when there are rival claims leading to a dispute with regard to the title. In the present case if the plaintiff-respondent had shown the sale-deed to the appellant, the latter was bound to take some action but the respondent ignored the appellant's request for proof of tilde and he cannot therefore argue that there was a bona fide dispute as to who was entitled to receive the rent. 6. In the present case if the plaintiff-respondent had shown the sale-deed to the appellant, the latter was bound to take some action but the respondent ignored the appellant's request for proof of tilde and he cannot therefore argue that there was a bona fide dispute as to who was entitled to receive the rent. 6. I allow this appeal with costs, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and dismiss the plaintiff-respondents' suit for ejectment. The decree for arrears of rent will stand. 7. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection from the decree for rent. It is contended that he was entitled to the rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- p.m. but it is not denied that the question whether the rent is Rs. 20/- or Rs. 10/- p.m. is a subject matter of dispute which is pending in this Court. Under these circumstances the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled at this stage to demand rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- p.m. The cross-objection is dismissed.