JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This revision by the Defendant is against the concurrent decrees passed by the Courts below for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1.340/- from him towards arrears of rent due from him to the vendor of the opposite party. 2. The Petitioner's father was a tenant under one Kasinath Subudhi in respect of a house at a monthly rental of Rs. 50/-. He was in arrears from 31-3-1972. Kasinath Subudhi sold the house to the opposite party under a registered sale deed dated 12-7-1977 and by a document of the even date assigned his claim to the arrears due to him from the Petitioners to the opposite party. The Petitioner's father died in the meanwhile. Since despite demands by the opposite party rent was not paid, the suit was filed on 19-4-1978 seeking recovery of rent for the period from 18-4-1975 to 12-4-1977 amounting to Rs. 1,340/-. Rent for the period prior to 18-4-1975 was given up as barred by time. Defendant denied the purchase by opposite party and refuted the allegations that his father was in arrears. It was contended that his father and be had acquired non-evictable tenancy rights. It was denied that there was any arrears. An assertion was made that rent was paid up to May 1977. Other pleas are not relevant. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that rent had not been paid from 31-3-1972 to 12-4-1977. It also found that the vendor of the opposite party had transferred his claim to the latter under Ext. 7 and so, the opposite party was entitled to a decree for the period within the period of limitation, i.e., 18-4-1975 to 12-4-1977. He decreed the suit for Rs. 1,340/-. It specifically disbelieved the plea of payment of Rs. 1,600/- by money order to the opposite party's vendor. 4. The only question that was urged by the learned Counsel for the Defendant-Petitioner was that the opposite party was not entitled to recover arrears by virtue of Ext. 7. On the other hand, Shri Ratho for the opposite party submitted that the rent due was an actionable claim which could be transferred by execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent as provided in Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. On the other hand, Shri Ratho for the opposite party submitted that the rent due was an actionable claim which could be transferred by execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent as provided in Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. Ext.7 having satisfied the requirement, the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit. 5. Right of an assignor to recover arrears of rent is property and, therefore, is transferable under the provisions of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. Such a right can be transferred in favour of the person who has acquired title to the property. By virtue of Section 130 (1) of the Transfer of Property Act, the right to recover the arrears of rent from the tenant vests in the transferee even though no notice of the transfer of the actionable claim in writing is sent to the tenant. Vesting of the right to recover the actionable claim does not depend upon the sending of a notice u/s 131 of the Transfer of Property Act. The purpose of Section 131 is to protect the interest of the transferee of the actionable claim. From the absence of notice, certain consequences follows, e.g., the transferee would not be able to recover the debt if the debtor pays it to the transferor or deals with it in any manner permitted by law (See Daya Debi Vs. Chapala Debi, and Prem Chand Vs. Onkar Dutt Sharma and Another. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the Petitioner on Kuar Rameshwar Narain Singh v. Rani Riknath Koeri AIR 1923 Pat. 165. The case is distinguishable inasmuch as there was no document in writing. The assignment was oral. Jai Narayan Pande Vs. Kishun Dutta Misra is a case where mesne profits were assigned. The claim on the basis of the assignment was negatived on the ground that mesne profit was an unliquidated claim and the assignment was of a 'mere right to sue'. In Poothakka Nachiar and Others Vs. Annamalai Chetty and Others, & the assignment was at future rent which was held to be an actionable claim. Reliance, therefore, was not opposite. I, therefore, negative the contention raised by the counsel for the Petitioner. By Ext. 7 dated 12-7-1977 the vendor of opposite party assigned his right to the arrears of rent to opposite party. Annamalai Chetty and Others, & the assignment was at future rent which was held to be an actionable claim. Reliance, therefore, was not opposite. I, therefore, negative the contention raised by the counsel for the Petitioner. By Ext. 7 dated 12-7-1977 the vendor of opposite party assigned his right to the arrears of rent to opposite party. The assignment was a definite sum and was not a mere right to sue and was therefore, transferable. Section 7 complies with the requirement of Section. 130 and notice to the tenant-debtor is not mandatory. 6. In the result, the revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed