JUDGMENT S.B. Sanyal, J. This is a tenant's second appeal from a concurrent judgment of his eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. 2. The Substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal is : "Whether the decree for eviction could be passed in favour of purchaser when the arrears of rent were not transferred under the deed" 3. Admittedly, the facts are as follows : plaintiff respondent No.1 brought the suit for eviction of the defendant appellant on two grounds - default in payment of rent as also for personal necessity. The trial Court decreed the suit of respondent No.1 both on the ground of personal necessity as well as default in payment of rent by its judgment dated 23.4.1981. 4. The tenant appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court on 22.5.1982, during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.2 purchased the disputed house by a registered sale deed (Ext. 5) In the last but one paragraph of the deed, it has been averred “Whatever right, title and interest the landlord has in the property and/or may acquire hereinafter stands transferred” It says- JO KUCH HAK AUR HAKOOK HASIL THA OR AINDA HOGADE DIYA. 5. The appeal of tenant was contested by both the original owner of the property and transferee (respondent No.2). In may be staled here that in the deed of transfer, admittedly there has been no specific averment of the assignment of the rent due to the landlord. The trial Court judgment has been affirmed by the appellate court, except the eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. In view of the transfer of the property by the plaintiff respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2, the transferee landlord became party in the appeal. 6. Mr. Syed Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the defendant appellant, submitted that in absence of an assignment of the arrears of rent to the transferee, the transferee landlord cannot acquire cause of action for recovery of the property on the ground of default of the tenant to pay the rent, since, the claim of arrears of rent is recoverable as a debt due to a tenant by the landlord. Learned counsel has strongly relied upon the case of Bibi Sabho Vs. Learned counsel has strongly relied upon the case of Bibi Sabho Vs. Bibi Jaibunissa and others (1986 B.B.C.J. 641), where this Court has observed : "What is due to the transferor 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." 7. Mr. Thakur Prasad, appearing for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, contended that the character of rent due is not changed and becomes merely an actionable claim or the claim for arrears of rent ceases to be such, when it is assigned by the owner when he transfers his property to another. The amount remains payable by the tenant to the successor landlord as arrears of rent because that is his own liability and it does not acquire any other character. Mr. Thakur Prasad further submitted that the transfer of the disputed premises passed unto the respondent No.2 the entire right of the vendor in or in respect of the disputed premises. Right of possession and enjoyment would include also all rights under the subsisting ejectment decree against the tenant of the premises. Learned counsel in support of his argument his strongly relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sri Nand Gopal Vs. Mosst. Prem Lata Devi (1985 P.L.J.R. 923) and also on some other decisions, to which I will advert hereinafter. 8. At first I thought that there is apparent conflict in the two judgments rendered by P.S. Mishra, J., one in the case of Bibi Sabho vs. Bibi Jaibunissa (Supra) and the other in the case of Sri Nand Gopal vs. Mosst. Prem Lata Devi (Supra) and refer the mater to a larger Bench. But on close scrutiny, I find that the two cases stand on different footing. 9. In Sri Nand Gopal's case (Supra), like the present one, the landlord obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant and the original plaintiff transferred the suit premises in appeal in favour of the transferee landlord. The Court held that the landlord's title would entitle him to possess the property and to evict any tenant upon it, as in exercise of the said right, the original plaintiffs had instituted the suit for eviction. The right of transfer of property was never cloak or cloud. The Court held that the landlord's title would entitle him to possess the property and to evict any tenant upon it, as in exercise of the said right, the original plaintiffs had instituted the suit for eviction. The right of transfer of property was never cloak or cloud. By virtue of the purchase of the property, the co-plaintiff landlord acquired title to the suit premises and the right to claim possession thereof. The original plaintiffs have not given up the pursuit, but the purchaser has only joined hands and seeks eviction of the tenant. The new landlord stepped into the shoes of the original landlords and the ground upon which the original plaintiff-landlords could evict the tenant did not vanish. This case completely answers the appellant's arguments. "Explanation" introduced by Amendment of 1976 to order 22, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure strengthens my conclusion. 10. Before I gave my reasons, two things need be borne in view. viz., (a) The plaintiff-landlord did not reserve anything to himself. On the contrary, he has conveyed the right of possession and enjoyment quietly and peaceably, and, (b) Prior to the transfer of property, the plaintiff-landlord had acquired a decree for ejectment of the appellant. 11. Order XXII, Rut 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it stood prior to its amendment, required that when the decree-holder transfers the decree by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree. In short, on and upon assignment of the decree, after due notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, the transferee decree-holder and the judgment-debtor could levy execution of the decree as if he is the original decree-holder. Inspite of this provision, prior to the amendment, Courts took liberal view of the provision and permitted the transferee of the property to execute the decree even when there were no specific words assigning the decree in the insrument of transfer. The reason which weighed with Court is if the transfer is of the entire rights of the vendor in respect of the disputed premises, that would include “all rights under the subsisting ejectment decree against a tenant”, as otherwise the transfer of the right of possession or enjoyment would be meaningless. See Ambika Prasad Saxena Vs. Smt. Bhagirathi Devi Agrawalla & others (A.I.R. 1968 Calctta 241). 12. See Ambika Prasad Saxena Vs. Smt. Bhagirathi Devi Agrawalla & others (A.I.R. 1968 Calctta 241). 12. The position which obtained in Ambika Prasad Sxena's case (supra) has improved considerably by inclusion of the "Explanation" by the Amendment Act, No.104 of 1976, which reads as hereunder; "Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of section 146, and a transferee of rights in the property, which is the subject matter of suit, may apply for execution of the decree without separate assignment of the decree as required by this rule." It is now clear that a transferee of the disputed property can levy execution of a prior decree even though the decree has not been assigned to the transferee by the instrument of transfer. 13. In the instant case, since the respondents No. 2 purchased the property with all rights of the transferor in it, after the vendor obtained a decree for eviction, the respondent No.2 can levy execution of that decree for eviction of the tenant in order to obtain possession of the property which was sold by the original landlord to the respondent No.2. 14. In Bibi Sabho's Case (Supra), the transfer was during the pendency of the suit, and not after the decree of eviction was obtained by the landlord. It was questioned, if the new purchaser could maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, and in that context, it was held that in absence of assingnment of rent to the transferee landlord, the dues against the tenant became a debt payable to the ex-landlord and the same is realisable by transferor and, therefore, it will not give a cause of action to the transferee to evict the tenant. This case, apart from being clearly distinguishable from the case under consideration, in my opinion has not taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Satti Krishna Reddy vs. Nallamilli Venkata Reddy, (1982) 3 Supreme Court cases 364. The reasoning of Bibi Sabho's case (Supra) appears to be, even if there be a complete transfer of the disputed property, the transferee landlord cannot acquire a right which is not attached to the property. The amount due to the landlord by a tenant is not attached to the property but it becomes detached and a debt of the tenant payable to his landlord. The amount due to the landlord by a tenant is not attached to the property but it becomes detached and a debt of the tenant payable to his landlord. On the day the rent for due, it gets separated from the property. Therefore, without specific assignment of the rent, the acquisition or title by the landlord does not entitle him to enforce the claim and cause of action arising therefrom. With great respect, I fail to see how the arrears of rent ceases to be rent and get detached from the house. As far as the tenant is concerned, the amount remains payable by him as arrears of rent because that is his liability and his liability does not acquire any other character, but a rent due to the landlord (vide case of Satti Krishna Reddy Supra). Once it is held that the character of the rent due remains, unchanged, even on transfer, so far as the tenant is concerned, it is difficult to accept that the dues get detached from the property. The position may be different if the landlord reserves to himself in the instrument of transfer his right to collect the dues which is not transferred, But where the instrument of transfer conveys all rights of the landlord with respect to the property, both present and entitling him to possession and peaceable enjoyment thereof, and/or any right accruing in future, there will be implied assignment of the rent accrued and amount likely to accrue. The principle enunciated in Ambika Prasad Saxena's case (Supra) while construing unamended Order 21, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, throws much light to the view taken by me. Unreserved and unfettered transfer of the property without assigning the decree by the transferor, if he held to include also the right under a subsisting ejectment decree against a tenant, on the same analogy and on the same reasoning I fail to see how a like Instrument will not include arrears of rent which is connected with the property in possession of the tenant. The character of rent remains unchanged unless there be any express argument to the contrary. I find that the case of Sri Nand Gopal (Supra) has been rightly decided and applies to this Case. The character of rent remains unchanged unless there be any express argument to the contrary. I find that the case of Sri Nand Gopal (Supra) has been rightly decided and applies to this Case. The transferee landlord can enforce the decree for ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent, even though the rent due has not been speciffically assigned to him. 15. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are affirmed. Appeal dismissed.