Judgment Prabha Shankar Mishra, J. 1. The tenant-appellant has questioned the validity of the decree of eviction the ground of default in the payment of rent. Both the Courts below have concurred in finding that the appellant defaulted in the payment of rent from January, 1973 to June, 1973. They have thus granted a decree of eviction. 2. The plaintiff No. 1, the original owner of the suit premises, alleged that the defendant entered as a tenant into the premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 15. The latter paid rent of the suit premises till December, 1972, but defaulted in payment since January, 1973 to June, 1973. The plaintiff No. 1 asked her to vacate the house, terminated the tenancy and when she failed to vacate, instituted the suit. Besides the arrears of rent and default, eviction was also sought on the ground of personal necessity. 3. Before the institution of the suit, however, the defendant had filed a petition before the Rent Controller appointed under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 which Act has since been repealed and replaced by the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 alleging that the house required immediate repairs which the landlord was obliged to do and since he had defaulted the Controller was required to make order directing the landlord to make the necessary repairs and in the event of default by him, to the tenant-defendant to make necessary repairs. The said application came to be disposed of during the pendency of the suit. It is not disputed that the tenant-defendant spent a sum of Rs. 350 on the repairs etc. as directed by the Controller. 4. The case of the defendant, however, was that there was no default and since in July, 1973 the plaintiff No. 1 refused to accept rent when tendered by the defendant, she sent the rent of the said month by money order on 27-8-1973, which also was not accepted by the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant, however, remitted rent by money order, as provided under the Act, for subsequent months also, but the plaintiff No. 1 refused to accept. She also claimed that the cost incurred by the defendant on repairs adjustable against the rent due and on such adjustment granted in her favour there was no default by her in the payment of rent. She also claimed that the cost incurred by the defendant on repairs adjustable against the rent due and on such adjustment granted in her favour there was no default by her in the payment of rent. The claim of personal necessity was also disputed by the defendant. 5. During the pendency of the suit, however, the plaintiff No. 1 transferred the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff No. 2 accordingly joined as the plaintiff and adopted the plaint filed by the plaintiff No. 1. A question thus arose whether the plaintiff No. 2 could maintain a suit for eviction on the ground of default of payment of rent by the defendant to her landlord, the plaintiff No. 1, before the plaintiff No. 2 got any title in the property or not? 6. The courts below have held that there is no loss either to the plaintiff No. 1 or to the plaintiff No. 2 of the right to evict the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default. They have, however, negatived the plaintiffs case of personal necessity. 7. Since the two questions to which I shall presently advert require no investigation of other facts and the case may be disposed of on the basis of the admitted facts and the findings recorded by the courts below, I do not propose to state the case of the parties in any further details. Plaintiff No. 1 has transferred the property to the plaintiff No. 2. The title which the plaintiff No. 1 had in the property subject to the survient right of the tenant has vested in the plaintiff No. 2. By virtue of the said transfer the plaintiff No. 2 has acquired every such right and interest which is attached to the property, but can it be said that a rent due to a landlord by a tenant is a claim attached to property and when the interest of the landlord is transferred to another, the claim of the arrears of rent also stands transferred. I have no manner of doubt that the answer to this question is in the negative. It is well settled that claim of arrears of rent is recoverable as a debt due to him by the landlord, On the day the rent falls due it gets separated from the land and by each default the debt increases. I have no manner of doubt that the answer to this question is in the negative. It is well settled that claim of arrears of rent is recoverable as a debt due to him by the landlord, On the day the rent falls due it gets separated from the land and by each default the debt increases. While transferring his interest it is open to a landlord to assign such claims to the transferee landlord, but in the absence of such assignment, the debt is due to him and not to the transferee landlord. He can recover the rent due as the debt from his ex-tenant if the debt is not barred by limitation. But the transferee in the absence of any assignment cannot do so. Can it then be said that although it is not a rent due to the transferee landlord, still because there has been a default in the payment of rent the consequent eviction as provided under Sec.11(1)(d) of the Act would be an interest demised in his favour by the transferor. In my judgment, the answer to this question is also in the negative. What is due to the transferor, as I have already noticed, is not always due to the transferee. The arrears of rent which remained for the transferor to realise can give no cause of action to the transferee to evict the tenant. 8. The above error of law apart, in my view, the Courts below have committed yet another error of law. The Courts below found that the tenant is entitled to recover and/or adjust Rs. 350 towards arrears of rent as per the order of the Controller in terms of Section 8(4) of the Act. The Court of appeal below, however, has taken the view that Rs. 350 spent by the tenant on the repairs of the building would become adjustable towards the rent due only on and from the date of the order of the Controller and not from the rent due from before. I have already noticed that the application for repairs was filed by the tenant-defendant in the Court of the Controller in the year 1972, much before the institution of the suit. The defendant fell in arrears of payment of rent allegedly for the period front January, 1973 to June, 1973. I have already noticed that the application for repairs was filed by the tenant-defendant in the Court of the Controller in the year 1972, much before the institution of the suit. The defendant fell in arrears of payment of rent allegedly for the period front January, 1973 to June, 1973. Section 9 clearly says that a landlord failing to appear in obedience to the notice and the repairs which he is required to carry out would be subjected to an order by the Controller, which order he would make after holding inquiry and in the order the Controller would direct him to carry out the repairs etc. within a time to be fixed by him and on the landlords failure the Controller would permit the tenant to carry out such repairs at a cost not exceeding the amount as may be specified in the order and to recover such cost from the landlord. The alleged repairs thus had fallen due in the year 1972, although they were carried out by the defendant as directed by the Controller during the pendency of the suit, but the costs incurred by the defendant were for the repairs fallen due in the year 1972. In Indumati Markandray Trivedi V/s. Jhala Umedsinhji Membhabhai -- , the Supreme Court has said that in a suit for eviction the Court has to grant to the tenant adjustment of such cost which creates a statutory liability upon the landlord. Considering the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Supreme Court has reiterated the observations in an earlier judgment of the said Court in which it has been laid down: The section gives the tenant a general right of recovery of the over paid rent within six months from the date of payment. Without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, he may deduct the overpayment from any rent payable by him to the landlord. Deduction is one mode of recovery. If the amount is incapable of recovery because of the bar of limitation, it cannot be recovered by deduction. In other words, the right of recovery by deduction is barred at the same time as the right of recovery by suit. If the tenant seeks recovery of the over paid amount he must bring the suit or make the deduction within six months. In other words, the right of recovery by deduction is barred at the same time as the right of recovery by suit. If the tenant seeks recovery of the over paid amount he must bring the suit or make the deduction within six months. Unlike the Bombay Act, in the Bihar Act there is no period of limitation prescribed for claiming such deduction from the rent payable to the land* lord by the tenant. It has neither spoken of the date of commencement of the claim nor the dates on which it shall become barred. The Bihar Act has given to the tenant a general right of recovery of the cost incurred in the repairs without creating any impediments either with respect to the commencement or with respect to the limitation. The amount which the appellant is entitled to adjust, as held by the Court of appeal below, is Rs. 350. The arrear alleged is Rs. 90 only. Once the adjustment is allowed there is no default by the tenant, in the payment of rent. 9 For the reasons stated above, I unhesitatingly hold that the Courts below have fallen in error of law in granting to the plaintiffs a decree for eviction of the tenant-appellant. The suit, for the aforesaid reasons, must fail. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs suit is dismissed. On the facts of this case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.