JUDGMENT : Shah, J. Mohd. Shafi was the owner of a house bearing No. 9829-33 Gall Zamin Wall, Nawabganj, Delhi, Motilal and Triloknath hereinafter called 'the respondents' were since April 6, 1954 tenants of the house at a monthly rental of Rs. 436/-. On November, 3, 1956 the respondents sublet a part of the house to Indra Perfumery-hereinafter called 'the appellant' at a monthly rental of Rs. 115/. On January 7, 1957, the appellant purchased the house from Mohd. Shafi. On February 10, 1962, the respondents applied to the Rent Controller, Delhi under section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for an order in ejectment against the appellant from the portion of the house in its occupation on the plea that the appellant had filled and neglected to pay rent within two months of the date on which the notice of demand for payment of arrears of rent was served on him and that between April -3, 1958 and February 2, 1962, an amount of Rs. 5,290/- was due from the appellant. The appellant contended that the relation of landlord and tenant between the respondents and the appellant ceased when the appellant purchased the house from Mohd. Shafi, and on that account the respondents were not entitled to recover the rent. The Rent Controller passed an order under section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act directing the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent from February, 1959 till the date of the order at the rate of Rs. 115/- per month, and future rent at the same rate by the 15th of each succeeding month. The Rent Controller rejected the plea of the appellant that there was a merger of the Interest of the respondents and the appellant and held that the appellant continued to be the tenant of the respondents in respect of the premises held by it. 2. An appeal filed against the order of the Rent Controller failed. The High Court of Punjab dismissed a second appeal filed by the appellant observing that the transfer by the previous owner to the appellant did not wipe out the tenancy in favour of the respondents. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal is preferred with special leave. 3. The title of Mohd. The High Court of Punjab dismissed a second appeal filed by the appellant observing that the transfer by the previous owner to the appellant did not wipe out the tenancy in favour of the respondents. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal is preferred with special leave. 3. The title of Mohd. Shafi, when he sold the house to the appellant on January 7, 1957, was subject to the right of the respondents as tenants. The respondents could claim protection of the statute in respect of the premises in their occupation which was enforceable against Mohd. Shafi and persons deriving title under him. The appellant as a transferee was subject to the obligations which were enforceable against Mohd. Shafi and it was therefore bound to recognise the right of the respondents as tenants. The appellant was a sub-tenant inrespect of part of the premises held by the respondents as tenants by purchasing the interest of Mohd. Shafi the relationship between the respondents and the appellant under the tenancy of November 3, 1956 was not determined, nor was the interest of the respondents as tenants of Mohd. Shafi extinguished. 4. Section 111(d) of the Transfer of property Act, on which the appellant relied does not assist his case. That clause provides that a lease of immoveable property determines in case the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property becomes vested at the same time in one person in the same right. The clause has no application, unless the interest of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property is vested in the same person. The appellant is the owner of the house, it is also a tenant of a part of the house of which the respondents are tenants from Mohd. Shafi. 5. It was urged by counsel for the appellant that it is Inconvenient for the appellant to recover Rs. 436/- as rent stipulated to be paid by the respondents to Mohd. Shafi, to which pursuant to the transfer it had become entitled, and to pay Rs. 115/- to the respondents in respect. Of the premises occupied by it under the respondents, and therefore an order permitting set of may be made but we do not think that any such order need be made in this appeal that is a matter for adjustment between the parties. 6. 115/- to the respondents in respect. Of the premises occupied by it under the respondents, and therefore an order permitting set of may be made but we do not think that any such order need be made in this appeal that is a matter for adjustment between the parties. 6. The appeal fails and there will be no order as to costs.