ORDER OF REFERENCE Bhave, J.- 1. This revision petition is by the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff had purchased the suit house under a registered sale-deed dated 7th February 1966 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000. By this sale-deed the right of the vendors to recover the arrears of rent has also been assigned to the plaintiff. On the basis of the title acquired by the plaintiff, he filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant and in that suit also claimed all the arrears of rent dup., that is to say, the arrears assigned to him under the sale-deed and those that became due after his purchase of the property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking a direction of that Court that the defendant be ordered to deposit the arrears due failing which to strike out his defence. The defendant deposited the arrears of rent due from the date of the sale-deed, that is, from 7th February 1966 and claimed that the arrears assigned to the plaintiff were not arrears of rent with respect to the plaintiff and that the defendant was not bound to deposit the same under section 13 of the Accommodation Control Act. This contention of the defendant found favour with the trial Court. Hence the plaintiff has come up in revision. 3. The reasoning which has appealed to the trial Court is that as soon as the arrears of rent are assigned, they cease to be 'arrears of rent' and they are converted into an 'actionable claim' as defined under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and that such arrears' are not liable to be deposited under section 13 of the Accommodation Control Act. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was urged that the arrears of rent in the hands of the previous landlord were also actionable claim; still they were arrears of rent vis-a-vis the tenant. As soon as the rent is not paid on the due date, it becomes a debt and, for that reason, an actionable claim. This actionable claim is described as an 'arrear or rent' when it is with respect to the unpaid rent. As soon as the rent is not paid on the due date, it becomes a debt and, for that reason, an actionable claim. This actionable claim is described as an 'arrear or rent' when it is with respect to the unpaid rent. When this actionable claim is transferred, it does not change its character, namely, that of an 'arrear of rent' only because the right to recover is transferred to another person. In any case, it was urged that in view of the proviso to section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, when a property is transferred along with the right of the vendor to recover the arrears of rent, with respect to the vendee the arrears retain their character as arrears of rent. For this argument, reliance has been placed on some of the observations of our learned brother Shiv Dayal, J. in Babu Bhai Vs. Bhagwandas, 1966 JLJ 75 . 5. On behalf of the defendant, it was urged that whether the claim of the arrears of rent is transferred along with the property or whether it is transferred separately to the vendee of the property or to a third party, it makes no difference. In all these cases what is transferred is an actionable claim and on such transfer in the hands of the transferee it is no longer arrears of rent but it becomes an actionable claim. The defendant relied on Daya Debi Vs. Chapala Devi, AIR 1960 Cal 378 for this proposition. The defendant further urged that the proviso to section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act makes no difference. Under that proviso, two matters are dealt with, namely, (i) that the transfer of property does not bring about the transfer of arrears of rent unless they are specifically transferred; and (ii) that the tenant, if in ignorance of the transfer of the property, that is, in the absence of notice of the transfer, pays the rent to the original landlord, then he gets a complete discharge of his liability. The function of the proviso to section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is urged, is not to make the arrears of rent in the hands of the vendor the arrears of rent in the hands of the vendee. 6. The question raised is of considerable importance. But for the decision of Shiv Dayal, J. in Babu Bhai Vs. 6. The question raised is of considerable importance. But for the decision of Shiv Dayal, J. in Babu Bhai Vs. Bhagwandas (supra), I would have taken a view in favour of the plaintiff. But there are certain observations in that judgment which prevent me from taking that view acting as a Single Judge, and I, therefore, feel that this matter should be placed before a larger Bench. My reasons are these : 7. Sub-section (1) of section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, provides: "13.-When tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction.- (1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate." Sub-section (6) then provides the penalty for failure to carry out the provisions of sub-section (1). It provides that the Court may order the defence to be struck off. Sub-section (1) of section 13 makes it obligatory on the tenant to pay the amount (calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid) for the period for which the tenant may have made a default including the period subsequent thereto. This clearly shows that the default spoken of is the default made by the tenant irrespective of the fact as to whether it was made vis-a-vis the original landlord or his successor. This sub-section also does not use the expression 'arrears of rent'; it only speaks of amount which was defaulted at which is to be calculated at the rate of rent paid before the default was committed. 8. This sub-section also does not use the expression 'arrears of rent'; it only speaks of amount which was defaulted at which is to be calculated at the rate of rent paid before the default was committed. 8. Apart from this, in my opinion, as soon as rent is not paid on due date, it becomes a 'debt' and as such it becomes an actionable claim in the hands of the landlord himself. When the transfers that claim to another person, that person becomes the assignee of the actionable claim. By transfer the character of the claim is not changed. What is transferred is the right to recover the debt and no more. The debt, when it arises out of a 1iabilty to pay rent, is described as 'arrears of rent': That is only a description of the debt. That debt, when transferred, need not change its character. To me it appears that when we speak of arrears of rent, they are vis-a-vis a tenant and not vis-a-vis the landlord. When a lessor dies and is succeeded by his heirs, it cannot be legitimately suggested that the arrears of rent change their character and become only an actionable claim in the hands of successors. This must also be true in the case of transferees. 9. At this stage, I purpose to consider the two decisions which take opposite views. They are : (1) Daya Debi Vs. Chapala Debi (supra) and (2) Ram Prakash Vs. Karam Chand, AIR 1963 All 47 . 10. Under section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which is identical with section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, a tenant is required to deposit the arrears of rent in default of which the defence can be struck off. The plaintiff in the Calcutta Case (supra), had purchased the suit property along with the arrears of rent. The contention of the defendant was that he was not liable to deposit the arrears of rent which were assigned to the new landlord as they ceased to be arrears of rent and became an actionable claim. Their Lordships (Lahiri and Roy, JJ.) of the Calcutta High Court first repelled the contention of the plaintiff that what he had acquired was merely a cause of action to recover the arrears of rent. Their Lordships (Lahiri and Roy, JJ.) of the Calcutta High Court first repelled the contention of the plaintiff that what he had acquired was merely a cause of action to recover the arrears of rent. Their Lordships then proceed to say: "The right of the assignor to recover arrears of rent is a property and as such it is transferable under the main provisions of S. 6 of the Transfer of property Act and it is not hit by any of the clauses which appear in that section. Such a right can be transferred either in favour of the person who has acquired title to the house itself or in favour of stranger. It is quite possible that the house is sold to 'x' and the claim for recovery of arrears is sold to 'Y'. For these reasons I have reached the conclusion that the claim for arrears of rent cease to be a claim for rent and is converted into an actionable wrong (claim) as defined by S. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and is assignable in the manner contemplated by S. 130 of the Act." After referring to a decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Hari Lal Sinha Vs. Tripura Charan Roy, ILR 40 Cal. 650, there Lordships further State : "The decision accordingly lends come support to the petitioner's contention that arrears of rent loses the charactor of rent as soon as they are assigned and are converted into an actionable claim." with due respect to their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court. I could like to point out that the possibility of a transfer of right to recover arrears of rent along with the property or otherwise is not a relevant factor decisive of the controversy in issue. If the right is transferred to a third party, what he will recover is still the arrears of rent assigned to him. He not being a landlord, in his case no question of filing a suit for ejectment will arise and as such the question of depositing the arrears shall also not arise. Similarly, if the right to recover arrears of rent is not assigned to the purchaser of the property in his suit for ejectment he, not having acquired the right to the arrears of rent cannot insist on deposit of the amount to which he has no claim. Similarly, if the right to recover arrears of rent is not assigned to the purchaser of the property in his suit for ejectment he, not having acquired the right to the arrears of rent cannot insist on deposit of the amount to which he has no claim. The mere fact that the arrears of rent can be transferred, apart from the property itself, is not, therefore, decisive of the matter as to whether their character is changed or not. Similarly, the observation in the Calcutta Case (supra) that- "arrears of rent loses the character of rent as soon as they are assigned and are converted into an actionable claim" is somewhat obscure. The arrears of rent are already actionable and as such they are assigned. They do not become actionable claim for the first time in the hands of the assignee, I, therefore, find it difficult to agree with the conclusion of the Calcutta High Court. 11. The matter came up before a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Prakash Vs. Karam Chand (supra), as a doubt was expressed about the correctness of a decision of a Single Judge of that Court reported in Bachchan Lal Vs. Ram Asrey, 1960 ALJ 147. In that case, the learned Singh Judge had held :- "It is true that under the sale agreement the previous owner Nandrani had assigned to the new landlord the right to recover the amount of rent which was due to her, but this was merely an assignment of an actionable claim or 'chose in action' as it is called under the English law. In respect of this amount he was the tenant's creditor but could not claim it as rent, on a sale or transfer of the property. If the previous owner transferred to his successor the right to collect arrears of rent, the latter is entitled to recover this amount as a creditor but not as it landlord. On the tenant's refusal to pay he can file a suit for the recovery of the amount but he cannot treat the tenant as 'rent defaulter' and cannot treat his refusal as a 'default' within the meaning of section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act for there can be no rent without a relationship of landlord and tenant". The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court first referred to the definition of 'landlord' in the local Rent Control Act which reads:" 'landlord' means a person to whom rent is payable by a tenant in respect of any accommodation and includes the agent, attorney, heir or assignee of the landlord and a tenant in relation to his sub-tenant". and, on the basis of this definition, proceeds to say:- "An assignee or a transferee of the orginal landlord is also a landlord within the meaning of that term. The plaintiff in this case having purchased the house as well as the arrears of rent was an assignee of the landlord was also the landlord within the meaning of section 3 (a) of the Act. When he demanded the arrears of rent and the defendant failed to pay the whole of the arrears of rent but offered only a portion of it payable subsequent to October, 1952, he did wilful default to make payment". Their Lordships further proceeded to consider the argument that the arrears of rent, which were due to the previous landlord, were not arrears of rent in the hands of the plaintiff and repelled it with following observations:- "So far as the defaulting tenant is concerned, it was an arrear of rent due against him. Whether that arrear of rent was now payable to the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title is wholly immaterial. Every arrear of rent is also a debt and it is transferable as a debt. But that does not mean that the character of the liability changes because of its having been transferred from one hand to another. The method of transfer cannot change the nature of the liability. If the plaintiff as a transferee and landlord of the defendant was entitled to realise this amount, which was an arrear of rent, and made a valid demand the defendant was bound to pay the same within one month of the notice of demand. If he failed to pay the same, he was certainly a wilful defaulter." While considering the argument based on section 109 of the Transfer of property Act, their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court observed :- "This proviso (proviso to section 109 T. P. Act) also speaks of the liability of the tenant before the transfer as arrears of rent. If he failed to pay the same, he was certainly a wilful defaulter." While considering the argument based on section 109 of the Transfer of property Act, their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court observed :- "This proviso (proviso to section 109 T. P. Act) also speaks of the liability of the tenant before the transfer as arrears of rent. Though it further goes to say that the transferee merely by virtue of his transfer is not entitled to these arrears of rent, but that is no ground for holding that this amount will not remain as arrears of rent if this is by an agreement transferred to the purchaser; The liability which is an arrear of rent will remain as an arrear of rent and the plaintiff when suing for it has to prove that it was due as an arrear of rent against the tenant for a certain period. We are therefore unable to agree with the view taken by the learned single judge in the case of Bachhan Lal Vs. Ram Aserey, 1960 All. LJ 147, that the amount of rent claimed by the plaintiff for a period before his purchase was not arrear of rent." 12. It is no doubt true that the definition of 'landlord' in the statute of U. P. is different from the one given in the local statute. But this does not make any difference. Even if an assignee or a transferee is not specifically included in the definition of 'landlord' in the local Act, that is the result of the operation of the law, and its specific mention in the definition of 'landlord' is superfluous, The Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court cannot, therefore, be distinguished on that ground. 13. I would now deal with the decision of Shiv Dayal, J. in Babubhai Vs. Bhagwandas (supra). In that case, the fact were that the plaintiff had purchased the suit house on 24th August 1959 and under a separate document he was also assigned the right to recover the arrears of rent by the previous owner of the property. 13. I would now deal with the decision of Shiv Dayal, J. in Babubhai Vs. Bhagwandas (supra). In that case, the fact were that the plaintiff had purchased the suit house on 24th August 1959 and under a separate document he was also assigned the right to recover the arrears of rent by the previous owner of the property. The question that arose for consideration was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to eject the tenant under section 4 (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, Section 4 (a) of that Act provides that if the tenant has failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a written notice of demand from the landlord, that is a good ground for ejectment of the tenant. The contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that arrears of rent, even when transferred as an actionable claim, do not lose their character and that it was sufficient for the plaintiff to show that the dues recoverable from the defendant were arrears of rent was not accepted by Shiv Dayal, J. This is what his Lordship observed:- "I am unable to accept this contention. In my opinion, whether an amount due by the tenant is payable to the landlord as arrears of rent or otherwise will have to be determined by reference to the provisions of the substantive law, the Transfer of property Act. A distinction must be drawn between a case where a landlord who has to recover arrears of rent from his tenant, while continuing to be the landlord, transfers the actionable claim to a third person, and a case where a landlord while transferring the property also transfers his right to recover the an ears of rent to the transferee. In the first case, the arrears or rent will be recoverable as an actionable claim under section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act; in the second case, perhaps, the transferee may recover the arrears of rent under section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act without applying the proviso. In the first case, the arrears or rent will be recoverable as an actionable claim under section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act; in the second case, perhaps, the transferee may recover the arrears of rent under section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act without applying the proviso. It is not possible to say that even in the first case the assignee of the actionable claim will be able to sue the tenant for the recovery of arrears of rent as such, or, further, he will be entitled to eject the tenant under section 4 (a) of the Act." His Lordship further proceeds to say:- "In the present case, the transfer in favour of the plaintiff became complete on 24th August 1959. Rights which tile plaintiff acquired by virtue of the transfer were under section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act read with the proviso. When subsequently the previous landlords authorised the plaintiff to recover the arrears of rent which the defendant owed to them, it was transfer of actionable claims within the meaning of section 130 of the transfer of property Act and the plaintiff was also entitled to a decree of the amounts due. They were merely debts which could not be recovered as arrears of rent because of the proviso to section 109 of the Transfer of property Act." I have already pointed out that in the hands of the landlord himself the right of recovery of the arrears of rent is in the nature of an actionable claim. From that claim certain other consequences flow, namely, that he may ask for ejectment of the tenant on that ground as provided under the Accommodation Control Act; but it is still an actionable claim in the hands of the landlord and that actionable claim is described as 'arrears of rent'. The fact that the arrears are assigned from one man to another does not change the character of the claim. Whether the transferee would be entitled to get the relief of ejectment would depend on whether he is the landlord or not and not on the ground whether the arrears accrued when he was the landlord or whether he secured the assignment of the arrears after he purchased the property. I, therefore, find it difficult to accept the observations quoted above. I, therefore, find it difficult to accept the observations quoted above. I may also point out that the purpose of the proviso to section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act is only to make it clear that the transfer of the property does not ipso facto bring about the transfer of the claim for arrears. That is to be separately done. But from this no inference can be drawn that the arrears of rent change their character only because they are not transferred along with the property. In my opinion, the provisions of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act read with the proviso are not decisive of the matter. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I respectfully agree with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court and I feel that this question should be referred to a larger Bench. I, therefore, direct that the papers be laid before my Lord the Chief-Justice with a request that his Lordship may constitute a Bench for the decision of this revision petition. ORDER OF THE D.B. Dixit, C. J., - 15. This revision petition against an order of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Jabalpur, rejecting the plaintiff-applicant's prayer for striking out, under section 13 (6) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act.', the defence of the non-applicant, has come up before us on a reference by our learned brother Bhave, J., before whom it was first placed for hearing. 16. The material facts are that by a sale-deed dated the 7th February 1966 the petitioner purchased a house situated in Jabalpur from one Virendra Saxena and two ladies for a consideration of Rs. 20,000. At the time of the purchase, the non-applicant was having in the house as a tenant of the vendors. By the sale-deed, the arrears of rent due to the vendors upto the date of the sale were also assigned to the petitioner. After purchasing the property, the applicant filed a suit for ejectment of the non applicant from the house and for recovery of arrears of rent from him. By the sale-deed, the arrears of rent due to the vendors upto the date of the sale were also assigned to the petitioner. After purchasing the property, the applicant filed a suit for ejectment of the non applicant from the house and for recovery of arrears of rent from him. The 'arrears of rent', which the plaintiff claims to recover, are not only those which he says became due to him after the purchase of the property, but also those which became due to the vendors before the sale of the property and which had been assigned to him by the sale-deed dated the 7th February 1966. 1he non-applicant-tenant deposited only the arrears of rent due from him from the date of the sale-deed. Thereupon the petitioner moved the trial Court under section 13 (6) of the Act for striking out the defence. This prayer was rejected by the learned Civil Judge accepting the contention of the tenant that he was not bound to deposit under section 13 of the Act that amount which he owed to the vendors as rent. 17. The learned Single Judge making the reference was inclined to think that the tenant should have deposited the rent amount assigned to the petitioner by the sale-deed dated the 7th February 1966. According to him section 13 (1) of the Act inter alia spoke of the deposit in the Court for payment to the landlord the amount of rent "for the period for which the tenant may have made default" and did not use the expression "arrears of rent"; that the rent amount, if not paid on the due date, no doubt becomes a "debt" owed to the landlord and it can be assigned by him; that when there is an assignment of this debt, what is transferred to the assignee is the right to recover the debt, but the character of the debt is not changed; it remains after the assignment, as before the assignment, an amount representing arrears of rent vis-a-vis the tenant; and that, therefore, when there is an assignment by the vendor of the arrears of rent, the tenant is bound to deposit, under section 13 of the Act, the assigned amount. The learned Single Judge thought that the matter should be decided by a larger Bench rather than by him sitting singly, as on the question of the character of rent amount after its assignment by an owner of the property to the purchaser while selling the property the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts have 'expressed different views in Daya Devi Vs. Chapala Devi, AIR 1960 Cat 378 and Ramprakash Vs Karamchand, AIR 1963 All 47 , and the view he was inclined to take did not accord with some observations made by Shiv Dayal, J. in Babu Bhai Vs. Bhagwan Das, 1966 JLJ 75 . 18. In our judgment, on the language of section 13 (1) of the Act, there can be no doubt that a person sued as a tenant is not required to deposit the amount representing arrears of rent due to the vendor that might have been assigned by him to the purchaser suing the tenant for eviction. Section 13 comes into operation when a suit or proceeding is instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds mentioned in section 12. In such a suit, the person suing claims that he is the landlord and alleges that the defendant is his tenant. The suit is thus founded on the allegation of a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant. Where a person purchases a property and if at the time of the purchase the property is in occupation of a tenant, then the relationship of landlord and tenant between the purchaser and the person in occupation of the property commences after the purchase and not before it. It is after the sale of the property that the person in occupation of the property as a tenant becomes liable to pay rent to the purchaser. If these principles are borne in mind, then the expression "the tenant shall deposit in the Court to pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid for the period for which the tenant may have made default", occuring in section 13(1) of the Act, clearly refers to the deposit of that amount of rent prior to the institution of the suit but after the commencement of the alleged relationship of landlord and tenant which the tenant may have defaulted in payment. The use of the words "landlord" and "tenant" and the expression "at the rate of rent" in section 13 (1) clearly points to the fact that the first part of section 13 (1) requires that the person used as a tenant has committed a default in the payment of rent prior to the institution of the suit to the person suing and claiming to be his landlord. Section 13 presupposes that when a suit or proceeding is instituted on any of the grounds referred to in section 12 of the Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant as between the plaintiff and defendant is subsisting. Therefore, the default spoken of by section 13 can only refer to the default in the payment of rent after the commencement of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Section 13 clearly does not deal with the deposit of that amount which the defendant sued as a tenant owed to others and failed to pay. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, makes it very clear that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer; such a rent amount is no part of the reversion. It can be assigned by the vendor-landlord. But it is a mere debt, and a mere 'chose in action'. Even after assignment, it does not become part of the reversion so as to make the lesssee liable to pay the assigned amount as rent to the transferee. The transferee becomes entitled to recover the assigned amount not by virtue of the transfer of the property, but by virtue of the contract of assignment. The origin of "such a debt" no doubt lies in the non-payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord who was then entitled to get it; the character of this origin is not altered by assignment so far as the tenant liable to pay the debt is concerned But that does not mean that when the amount is paid by the tenant to the assignee, he paid it because that amount was due as rent to the assignee. In our view, section 13 (1) does not require the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent due before the transfer if they are assigned by the vendor-landlord to the purchaser of the property. In our view, section 13 (1) does not require the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent due before the transfer if they are assigned by the vendor-landlord to the purchaser of the property. It makes no difference to this position whether the assignment of the arrears of rent is contemporaneous with the sale of the property or subsequent to it. 19. The view taken by Shiv Dayal, J. in Saba Bhai Vs. Bhagwandas, 1966 JLJ 75 that arrears of rent due to the vendor when assigned by him to the purchase assume the character of 'Debt' and cannot be recovered as arrears or rent by the assignee is correct. In that case, the arrears of rent were assigned to the purchaser of the property not at the time of the sale, but subsequently. But, as we have pointed out earlier, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the assignment of the arrears of rent is made at the time of the sale of the property or afterwards. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Daya Debi Vs. Chapala Debi, AIR 1960 Cal. 378 , has also expressed the view that in a proceeding under section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, by the assignee from the landlord of the premises along with arrears of rent, the tenant is not required to deposit under section 17(1) of that Act the arrears of rent which were transferred by the landlord in favour of the transferee plaintiff. Section 17 (1) of the Bengal Act is substantially analogous to section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 20. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Prakash vs. Karam Chand, AIR 1963 All, 47 is no doubt contrary to the view taken by us. In that case, a Division Bench' of the Allahabad High Court, overruling a decision of a Single Judge of that Court reported in Bachchan Lal Vs. 20. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Prakash vs. Karam Chand, AIR 1963 All, 47 is no doubt contrary to the view taken by us. In that case, a Division Bench' of the Allahabad High Court, overruling a decision of a Single Judge of that Court reported in Bachchan Lal Vs. Ram Asrey, 1960 All LJ 147, has held that in view of the definition of the word "landlord" contained in the U.P. (Temporary, Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, the transferee of the house, who has purchased the arrears of rent also, can make a demand and the amount of liability will not lose its character as arrears of rent, and that section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not prohibit the transfer of claim for arrears of rent in favour of the transferee of the property. In reaching that conclusion, the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court laid all emphasis on the definition of the word "landlord", as given in the U. P. Act, as "including an assignee of the landlord". The decision of the Allahabad High Court is not helpful here for the simple reason that the definition of "landlord" given in section 2 (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, does not include an assignee of the landlord. Again, even if the word "landlord" had been defined as including an assignee of the landlord, that would not have made the assignee the landlord in relation to the person occupying the accommodation as a tenant for the period before the assignment. The assignee cannot, in view of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, or on any principle, be regarded as landlord before the assignment so as to entitle him to claim or recover the arrears of rent due to the vendor and assigned by him. It is no doubt true that section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act does not prohibit the transfer of claim for arrears of rent in favour of the transferee of the property. But from this it does not follow that after assignment it becomes part of the reversion so as to made the lessee liable to pay the assigned amount as rent to the transferee. 21. But from this it does not follow that after assignment it becomes part of the reversion so as to made the lessee liable to pay the assigned amount as rent to the transferee. 21. For all these reasons, our conclusion is that the non-applicant tenant was not required to deposit under section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act 1961, the amount of arrears of rent due to the vendor that was assigned to the applicant when he purchased the property in question. The learned Civil Judge was therefore, right in rejecting the applicant's prayer for striking out the non-applicant's defence. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.