The suit brought by the petitioner as plaintiff against the respondent (defendant-tenant) for recovery of possession of the suit land and house was dismissed by the Sadar Munsiff (1), Silchar, in T. S. No. 112 of 1975. Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff was also dismissed by the Assistant District Judge (I), Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 81 of 1977. This is now how the revision has come up for hearing in this-Court. 2. The facts found proved by the Courts below are that the High Court of Calcutta appointed a Receiver of the suit land and house. The Receiver leased out the suit land and house to the defend ant-ten ant. But the Receiver, with the per­mission of the High Court of Calcutta, sold the suit land and house to the plaintiff-petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 13.9.1974. The defendant-tenant came to know of the assignment only from the assignee (Plaintiff) when he received a notice of eviction from the plaintiff. Under one of the condi­tions of the lease, the defendant-tenant was to pay rent for the month of September 1974 by 7.10.1974. The defendant tenant having no notice of the assignment, paid the rent to the assignor, but the assignor and/or his employees refused to accept the rent paid by the defendant-tenant for the month of September. The­refore, the defendant-tenant deposited the rents under the Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short the "Act'') within time on 12.10.1974, However 12.10.1974 the defendant-tenant deposited the rent for the months of September and October of 1974 in fav­our of the assignor. As soon as the defendant-tenant came to know about the assignment, he offered or tendered or paid the rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also refused to accept the same. Therefore, the defendant-tenant amended the rent deposit petition on 18.8.1975 and has been depositing the rent in the name of the plaintiff (assignee) under the ''Act''. 3. The only contention of Shri K. P. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the deposit of rents as aforesaid does (sic, does not) amount to payment of rent to the plaintiff or the landlord and that the defendant-tenant has not paid the rent due from him. Mr. 3. The only contention of Shri K. P. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the deposit of rents as aforesaid does (sic, does not) amount to payment of rent to the plaintiff or the landlord and that the defendant-tenant has not paid the rent due from him. Mr. Sen has further submitted that the petitioner is the land-lord under Section 2 (c) of the Act as he is entitled to the rent and that the defendant ought to have tendered or offe­red or paid the rent to the plaintiff, or deposited the rent in favour of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff refused to accept the rent. Therefore, the aforesaid deposit of rents does not amount to payment of rent to the plaintiff under the "Act". 4. Under section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short "T. P. Act''), if the lessor transfers the property leased the transferee in absence of the contract to the contrary, shall possesses all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property transferred. To receive rent is one of the rights. Therefore, the assignee has the right to receive rent from the tenant, in the absence of the contract to the contrary. In the present case, there is no such a contract. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to receive rent/or rents from the defendant-tenant and is the land-lord within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the "Act". 5. The question which arises for consideration is whether the defendant-tenant has or had not paid the rent or rents due from him as contended by the plaintiff petitioner. The transfer or as­signment was made on 13.9.1974. The transfer or assignment was completed as soon as the registered sale deed was executed on 13.9.1974 Since there is no agreement that rent for the period from 1.9.1974 to 12.9.1974 or 13.9.1974 will be entitled to the assignee, the assignee shall not be entitled to the rents for the aforesaid period. Be that as it may, the circumstances of the case show that the defendant-tenant paid or deposited rents in good-faith before he had the notice of the assignment. 6. Be that as it may, the circumstances of the case show that the defendant-tenant paid or deposited rents in good-faith before he had the notice of the assignment. 6. Section 50 of the T. P. Act provides that no person shall 'be chargeable with any rents or profits of any immovable property which he has in good faith paid or delivered to any person of whom he in good faith held such property, notwithstanding, it may afterwards appear that the person to whom such payment or delivery was made had no right to receive such rents or pro­fits. This illustration of Section 50 of the T. P. Act is as follows : "A lets a field to B at a rent of Rs. 50/- and than trans­fers the field to C, B having no notice of the transfer, in good faith pays the rent to A, B, is not chargeable with rent so paid". The facts stated above satisfy the provision of Section 50 or the illustration thereof. In this view of the matter, the defen­dant-tenant who paid or deposited the rents in good faith before he had the notice of the assignment shall not be treated as defaulter. 7. As regards the rent deposited by the defendant-tenant after the receipt of the notice of the assignment, the defendant-tenant offered or paid the rent to the plaintiff (assignee) in time after the receipt of the notice of the assignment, but the plain­tiff refused to accept the same. Therefore, the defendant-tenant deposited rent or rents, as already stated above. In this view of the matter, the defendant-tenant cannot be treated as a defaulter under the "Act”. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.