JUDGMENT : N.P. Thakkar, J. 1. If a person purchases property along with the right to recover arrears of rent for a period prior to the date of purchase can be evict the tenant on the ground that he is in arrears of 'rent' under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act? Differently put, the question is whether rent due by a tenant to the owner of the property retains the character of rent if the property is sold by the owner to someone else along with the right to recover arrears prior to the date of sale? Would it fulfil the character of a debt or would it fulfil the character of rent vis-a-vis the purchaser of the property? This problem is posed in the present petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been referred to a Division Bench by J.M. Sheth, J. presumably in view of a conflict between the view taken by him in Bai Dahiba and others v. Jitendra Kanaiyalal Parikh, 12 GLR 595 and the view taken by T.U. Mehta, J. in Prem Govindram Sainani v. H.M. Methwani, 14 GLR 952. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The respondents are the owners of an immovable property situated in Una which they purchased from one Fakir Kasamsha Abdulsha under a registered sale-deed dated December 29, 1969. The petitioner was a sitting tenant in occupation of the said property at the point of time when the respondents purchased the property from Fakir Kasamsha. Rent in respect of this property was arrears with effect from March 1, 1969. It would mean that on December 29, 1969 when the respondents purchased the property from Fakir Kasamsha the petitioner was in arrears of rent for about nine months commencing from March 1, 1969. In the sale-deed executed by Fakir Kasamsha it was mentioned that the respondents-purchasers would have the right to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner tenant in respect of the period of about nine months prior of the date of the sale. In the sale-deed executed by Fakir Kasamsha it was mentioned that the respondents-purchasers would have the right to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner tenant in respect of the period of about nine months prior of the date of the sale. The respondents instituted a suit for possession on the ground of non-payment of rent and contended that they were entitled to a decree for possession inasmuch as the petitioner was in arrears of rent for a period exceeding six months including the rent for the period to the date of purchase which was due to their vendor Fakir Kasamsha. The learned appellate Judge relied on Bai Dahiba and others v. Jitendra Kanaiyalal Parikh, for reversing the view taken by the trial Court that the rent due to the vendor of the property cannot be considered as rent in arrears vis-a-vis the purchasers of the property as well. In other words the view was taken that the amount due by way of rent to the vendor in respect of which respondents-purchasers had acquired the right to recover from the petitioner retained the character of rent and that petitioner was liable to eviction on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for a period exceeding six months. The petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the view taken by the learned appellate Judge and has contended that the sum which was due by way of rent to the vendor prior to the date of sale could not retain the character of rent when the respondents sought to recover the same pursuant to the right acquired by them under the sale-deed in respect of recovery of its arrears. It was urged that the sum due would assume the character of an ordinary "debt" and not the character of "rent" due by a tenant to a landlord. 3. It was urged that the sum due would assume the character of an ordinary "debt" and not the character of "rent" due by a tenant to a landlord. 3. Now, the view taken by J.M. Sheth, J. in Bai Dahiba and others v. Jitendra Kanaiyalal Parikh, that the expression "landlord" employed in Section 12 of the Rent Control Act would carry the same meaning as is assigned to it in Section 5(3) of the Act and that even a rent collector who has a right to recover the rent on behalf of the owner would fulfil the description of "landlord" in Section 12 of the Rent Control Act has in terms been reversed by a Full Bench of this High Court in Nanalal Girdhar Lal and another v. Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwalla and others, 1973 Rent Control Reporter 583 : 1972 RCJ 889 . In this view of the matter the basis of the decision rendered by the appellate Judge has collapsed. This very question has been resolved by T.U. Mehta, J. in Prem Govindram Sajnani v. H.M. Methwani. Having closely examined the question we are of the opinion that the view taken by T.U. Mehta, J. has followed the Full Bench decision in Nanalal's case and has differed from J. Sheth, J. as the decision rendered by him in Bai Dahiba's case has been overruled by the Full Bench. Under the circumstances, there is little room for reopening the question. It is specious to contend that notwithstanding the decision of the Full Bench the expression "landlord" must be assigned the same meaning as it carries in Section 5(3) of the Rent Control Act. All the same, as the matter has been referred to a Division Bench and as we are seized of the matter, we may as well express our opinion on the question for reasons which have commended themselves to us though we concur with the view taken by T.U. Mehta, J. and the reasoning which has appealed to him. 4. The argument that rent due to the vendor of a property prior to the date of sale would continue to fulfil the character of rent vis-a-vis the purchaser of the property can scarcely stand scrutiny. 4. The argument that rent due to the vendor of a property prior to the date of sale would continue to fulfil the character of rent vis-a-vis the purchaser of the property can scarcely stand scrutiny. The expression "rent" has been defined in the Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt, 1959 Edition, at page 1521 as under :- "Rent may be regarded as of a twofold nature-first, as something issuing out of the land, as a compensation for the possession during the term; and secondly, as an acknowledgement made by the tenant to the lord of his royalty or tenure." Rent is the compensation paid by the tenant to the landlord for the occupation of the demised premises. In order to fulfil the character of rent, the debt must be due by a tenant to a landlord. The debtor must fulfil the character of the tenant and the creditor must fulfil the character of the landlord. Unless both of them fulfil the character of landlord and tenant respectively, the amount due cannot be considered to be rent due. At the point of time prior to the sale, the respondents purchasers were not the owners of the property. The amount due by the tenant in respect of the use and accrued due to the vendor and not to the respondent-vendees who subsequently purchased the property along with the right to recover past arrears. At the point of time prior to the sale the vendor was the landlord. At that point of time the respondents vendees had acquired no title to the property and therefore, they could not have fulfilled the status of landlord. At the point of time when the rent accrued or fell due prior to the sale, either the vendor was the landlord or the vendee was the landlord. There could not be two different landlords at the same point of time. If the respondents who were total strangers at the point of time when the rent accrued or became due to prior to the purchase effected by them were not the owners of the property and were not the landlords in respect of this property, how had they become landlord vis-a-vis the petitioner-tenant after purchase of the property in respect of the rent which fell due prior to the date of the purchase ? Can it ever be contended that stranger who were not owners of the property when the rent became due became landlords or owners with retrospective effect so that they would fulfil the description of landlords vis-a-vis the tenant in respect of past arrears. Admittedly the respondents had no title when the rent fell in arrears to the vendor of the property prior to the date of sale by him. Can it be said that though they were not owners, even so they were landlords and the petitioners were their tenant? Can a person who is not the owner of the property and who has no interest therein, fulfil the character of landlord even though someone also was the owner of the property and fulfilled the character of landlord vis-a-vis the tenant at that particular point of time? A person cannot become an owner of a property prior to the date of his purchase with retrospective effect. So also he cannot become a landlord vis-a-vis the sitting tenant prior to the date of his purchase. It must be realised that there was no tri-parte agreement between the landlord on one hand, the tenant on the other hand and the purchaser on the third hand. Admittedly there was no privity of contract or privity of estate between the petitioner and the respondents who purchased the property on December 29, 1969. So far as the tenant was concerned, the purchaser was a total stranger with whom he had no privity on the date on which the rent fall in arrears. On the date on which the rent fell in arrears the respondents had no right whatsoever in respect of the property which was in the occupation of the tenant. From March 1969 till December 1969 the respondent had not a vestige of title in respect of the property. If they had not a shadow of title during this period, how can it then be said that they were landlords of the tenant? If they were not the landlords, they could not have claimed compensation from the tenant for the use and occupation of the property which did not belong to them. Admittedly therefore till December 29, 1969 the respondents could not have claimed the status of landlords. What happened then which made them landlords vis-a-vis the tenant in respect of the same period? Admittedly therefore till December 29, 1969 the respondents could not have claimed the status of landlords. What happened then which made them landlords vis-a-vis the tenant in respect of the same period? What was due to the respondents was not rent payable by a tenant to a landlord but it was a debt recoverable by the respondents-purchasers by virtue of the right acquired by them from the owner landlord who was entitled to recover the rent from the tenant. The amount due cannot, therefore, be styled as rent due by the tenant, to the purchasers so far as the compensation payable by him for the period prior to the purchase of the property by the respondents is concerned. In respect of the amount due by way of rent from the tenant, only one person could have laid a claim to a it all the material time, namely, the owner of the property who was the landlord vis-a-vis the tenant. Someone other than the owner and the landlord could have laid down a claim against the tenant only in his capacity as an agent of the landlord or in his capacity as an assignee of the landlord. If the amount was claimed in his capacity as the agent of the owner and landlord, the amount paid by the tenant to him would be payment by the tenant to the owner and the landlord through the agent. The payment to the agent would in the eye of law constitute payment to the principal through his authorised agent. It would then be payment to the owner and the landlord i.e. to the vendor of the property. If the amount was claimed by a person other than the person who was the owner and the landlord at the point of time when the rent fall in arrears as an assignee of the landlord, the payment made by the tenant to the assignee would not be payment to the owner or the landlord for the assignee is not the agent of the owner or the landlord. His debt to the owner and the landlord would stand satisfied by reason of the fact that the owner and the landlord had authorised the assignee to recover the amount and give full discharge to the tenant. His debt to the owner and the landlord would stand satisfied by reason of the fact that the owner and the landlord had authorised the assignee to recover the amount and give full discharge to the tenant. But then he would be doing so in his capacity as an assignee claiming through the owner and the landlord and not in his own right as an owner and landlord. It is not possible to conceive that one person would be the owner in respect of the property and another who had no interest in the property at that point of time would be a landlord in respect of the same property at that point of time vis-a-vis a tenant. At the point of time when the rent fell into arrears, the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the original owner (vendor) and the tenant. At that point of time, therefore, there could not be two owners or two landlords each claiming title up-to himself in his own right. The status of landlord cannot be conferred on a stranger with respective effect by an owner of property by virtue of a subsequent sale in respect of a period to the sale. One of the tests which might clinch the issue is to ask the question as to whether the tenant could have enforced his rights as against the subsequent purchasers for the period prior to the purchase. Another test would be to ask the question as to whether when the rent fell into arrears, the subsequent purchasers could have claimed to recover the rent from the tenant. Both these tests answer against the proposition canvassed on behalf of the respondents. The problem would assume an interesting character if another dimension were to be considered. Supposing that the owner of the property had transferred his right to recover the rent in arrears from the tenant to another person without selling the property in question to him. For the purposes of the present argument, one need not consider the question whether it would be a valid transfer within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act as an actionable claim or whether it would be a transfer of a mere right to sue. For the purposes of the present argument, one need not consider the question whether it would be a valid transfer within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act as an actionable claim or whether it would be a transfer of a mere right to sue. Assuming that the owner had transferred the right to recover rent without transferring the property, whether the transferee or assignee can claim that he is the landlord in respect of the premises? Could he then have contended that though the owner continued to be the landlord, the amount due to him as an assignee would still be rent payable by the tenant? The amount paid by the tenant to the owner or his agent on his behalf can fulfil the description of "rent" but the amount paid by him to some one else cannot fulfil the description of "rent". To contemplate another interesting situation, one may put the question as to whether the tenant can raise a dispute about standard rent when the assignee seeks to recover the rent due to the owner and the landlord under the deed of assignment. We are, therefore, firmly of the opinion that in respect of arrears of rent due to the vendor prior to the date of sale, the purchaser cannot be considered as a landlord and the amount due to the original landlord which may be recoverable by the purchaser by virtue of a deed of assignment cannot be considered as "rent" due to him. The view taken by the learned appellate Judge cannot under the circumstances be sustained. 5. Though the petitioner succeeds on the first point, in ultimate result he cannot successfully assail the decree for eviction inasmuch as it is an admitted position that he has not deposited the rent in arrears during the pendency of the appeal in the appellate Court between January 3, 1973 and August 15, 1973. This position is not in dispute. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not shown his preparedness to deposit the rent in arrears even now. For failure to deposit the rent for the period subsequent to January 3, 1973 the tenant is liable to be evicted. Even though we were prepared to grant sufficient time to the tenant to deposit these arrears, Mr. Sompura stated that he would not be able to avail of the opportunity. For failure to deposit the rent for the period subsequent to January 3, 1973 the tenant is liable to be evicted. Even though we were prepared to grant sufficient time to the tenant to deposit these arrears, Mr. Sompura stated that he would not be able to avail of the opportunity. Under the circumstances, the decree for possession passed by the appellate Court must be confirmed though on different grounds. 6. The petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged. There will be no order regarding costs. Petition rejected.