Judgment :- 1. During the pendency of a petition for eviction as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), the landlords sold the ownership of the building to three other persons. Those persons got themselves impleaded as panics in the petition. Are they entitled to get an order of eviction in the same petition, on the ground of arrears of rent accrued prior to the agreement? That question has been raised in this Original Petition filed by the tenant in challenge of the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. The tenant has not taken this ground earlier, not even in the revision filed by him before the District Court, despite the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that rent is in arrears and the landlords are entitled to the order of eviction under S.11 (2) (b) of the Act. 2. The petition in the Rent Control Court was filed by four persons, who were the then owners of the building, for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, sub-letting and acts of waste. It was alleged in the petition that the tenant had defaulted rent from 1-9-1965 onwards and that statutory notice was sent to the tenant before filing the petition. In his objections the tenant contended, inter alia, that some of the rooms in the structure were actually constructed by him and that the rent arrears relate only to one of the rooms. He also claimed benefit under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the original landlords sold the ownership of the building to three other persons, who were impleaded as additional petitioners on 17-7-1986. The Rent Control Court granted eviction on the ground of arrears of rent alone. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the District judge in revision did not interfere. These are the bare facts necessary for this Original Petition. 3. Learned counsel contended that the transferee landlords are not entitled to order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent due before the date of transfer. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the District judge in revision did not interfere. These are the bare facts necessary for this Original Petition. 3. Learned counsel contended that the transferee landlords are not entitled to order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent due before the date of transfer. Ss.8 and 109 of the Transfer of Property Act were referred to by the counsel to support the contention that since a transferee landlord is entitled to claim only the rent which falls due subsequent to the date of transfer he is not entitled to an order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. He cited the Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in flam Tahal Modi v. Ratanlal (AIR 1989 Patna 13). The said decision proceeded on the admitted fact that there was no recital in the deed of transfer regarding past rent which fell due prior to the date of transfer. In the present case it is admitted that the deed of transfer contains a provision permitting the transferees to realise the arrears of rent from the lessee. That apart, the corresponding provision in the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1983 is vastly different from S.11(2) of the Act. A reading of the relevant provision in the Act suggests that even absence of a recital in the transfer deed regarding past rent does not matter much so far as the application of the aforesaid ground is concerned. 4. S.11(2)(a) of the Act enables a landlord to apply to the Rent Control Court for a direction to put him in possession of the building on the ground envisaged in the sub-section, clause (b) deals with the ground of arrears of rent. Before passing an order of eviction on that ground, the Rent Control Court must be satisfied that "the tenant has not paid or tendered rent due by him in respect of the building" within the time mentioned therein. The only embargo is that an application for eviction on that ground can be made if the tenant has failed to pay the rent within fifteen days of receipt of or refusal to receive a registered notice mentioned in the proviso. The only embargo is that an application for eviction on that ground can be made if the tenant has failed to pay the rent within fifteen days of receipt of or refusal to receive a registered notice mentioned in the proviso. If the ground for eviction under the aforesaid clause arose and ripened into a cause of action prior to the filing of the application, the Rent Control Court has only to reach the satisfaction that the tenant had committed the default. Upon such satisfaction an order of eviction can be passed. It must, in this context, be borne in mind that the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for arrears of rent. It can only pass an order of eviction on the ground that the tenant has defaulted rent and the default was not rectified till the expiry of the notice period. Power of the court to pass such an order in such context is not restricted on account of transfer of ownership or title of the landlord. Even then the tenant is not without remedies. Clause (c) enables the tenant to get the order of eviction nullified by making the deposit of arrears of rent with interest and cost within the time specified therein. 5. Another reasoning to support the said view is this: Under S.2(3) of the Act any person who "is entitled to receive the rent of a building" is also a landlord. It is not necessary that the landlord, who files the application for eviction on this ground, must be the person who was entitled to receive the past rent which fell due before the date of the application. The successor is also a landlord as he is entitled to receive rent. If the default in paying rent crystallises into a ground of eviction under S.11 (2) (b) of the Act, no tenant can legitimately resist the action for eviction merely on the premise that the default happened prior to the date of the present landlord acquiring ownership of the building. The ground for eviction based on such default continues to hold good notwithstanding the change of ownership of the building. In other words, transfer of ownership of the building would not change the character of tenant's default, nor would it transform the arrears of rent to any other character. 6. The ground for eviction based on such default continues to hold good notwithstanding the change of ownership of the building. In other words, transfer of ownership of the building would not change the character of tenant's default, nor would it transform the arrears of rent to any other character. 6. A division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Prakash v. Karam Chand (AIR 1963 Allahabad 47) had considered the question whether there is any change in the character of arrears of rent after the transfer of ownership of the building. The proviso to S.109 of the Transfer of Property Act was referred to by their Lordships. It was held that "the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the arrears of rent which were due to the previous landlord are not arrears of rent in the hands of the plaintiff, does not stand to reason; so far as the defaulting tenant is concerned, it was an arrear of rent due against him; whether that arrear of rent was now payable to the plaintiff or to his predecessor-in-title is wholly immaterial, the liability which is an arrear of rent will remain as an arrear of rent and the plaintiff when suing for it has to prove that it was due as an arrear of rent against the tenant for a certain period". In Satti Krishna Reddy v. Nallamilli Venkata Reddy and another ((1982) 3 S.C.C. 364) Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) held that it is an erroneous view that when a claim for arrears of rent is assigned it loses the character of a claim for rent and the arrear of rent becomes merely an actionable claim. His Lordship pointed out that the said view was not shared by most of other High Courts. The following observation in the said decision is of advantage: "So far as the tenant is concerned, the amount remains payable by him to the successor landlord as arrears of rent because that is his own liability and it does not acquire any other character". The position is thus made clear. Hence there can be no doubt that the successor landlords are entitled to get the order of eviction even if the default of the tenant occurred prior to the date of transfer. The position is thus made clear. Hence there can be no doubt that the successor landlords are entitled to get the order of eviction even if the default of the tenant occurred prior to the date of transfer. The petitioner therefore cannot succeed on the contention now advanced based on the change in the ownership of building the Original Petition is hence dismissed. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.