M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE facts of this case deal with a common misnomer that is prevalent particularly in relation to situations that arise when immovable properties change hands. The two questions that have arisen is as to whether when the ownership of the premises change from one landlord to the other, the tenancy automatically gets transferred to the new owner and secondly as to whether in the absence of such a situation the previous landlord is entitled to continue collecting the rent and conversely, if the tenant has made the rent payments to the previous landlord, whether that would discharge the liability of the tenant vis-a-vis the subsequent purchaser. ( 2 ) THE petitioner before me was the tenant of the premises from 1975 to about 1984. According to him one Saraswathi was the owner of the building and that she inducted him into the premises. In the year 1984, the petitioner tenant was faced with a eviction suit No. 968 of 1984 instituted by the present respondent in his capacity as owner of the building. According to him, he had purchased the building in the year 1973 from saraswathi and for the reasons set out in the plaint he contended that the petitioner was liable to be evicted from the premises. The petitioner did not really contest that proceeding, though he had filed his written statement wherein he contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the plaintiff and that he was always regarding saraswathi as his landlady. The petitioner agreed to vacate the premises and hand over possession. While passing orders however, the Court made an observation to the effect that the petitioner was a tenant of the plaintiff. The petitioner filed a revision Petition No. 3125 of 1986 before this Court wherein he contended that the repurcussions to him could be serious if the observation that he was tenant of the plaintiff were retained and this Court while disposing of the petition kept the matter open by observing that it was always open to the petitioner if any claims were made against him to point out that the rent paid by him to Saraswathi was a valid discharge of his obligation. As was to be expected, the present respondent-landlord filed a suit before the Small Cause Court which is the present proceeding with which we are concerned being S. C. No. 1573 of 1986 wherein he contended that the petitioner tenant has not paid arrears of rent aggregating to Rs. 9,800/- since the year 1982 but that the claim was being confined to Rs. 6,900/- being the rent recoverable for the last three years. The tenant contested the suit and it was his plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and secondly, that he will establish that the rent right upto the date of his having vacated the premises was paid to Saraswathi and that therefore no amount was recoverable from him. ( 3 ) IN the course of the trial, the petitioner examined him self in support of his plea that as far as he was concerned, that he was not aware of any change of ownership and that therefore he has continued all through to pay the rent to Saraswathi. He produced the rent receipts received from her and he also examined Saraswathi a son who has deposed to the fact that the rent was paid right upto the date when the petitioner vacated the premises. The learned Judge relied on the observations in the earlier order which was to the effect that the petitioner was the tenant of the respondent and consequently, the learned judge held that whatever payments the petitioner pleads between himself and Saraswathi cannot discharge his obligation to pay rent to the respondent and that therefore the suit was liable to be decreed. The learned trial Judge has proceeded on the assumption that on and from the date when the respondent became the owner of the premises that he must be regarded as the de jure landlord and that therefore ipso facto he would be entitled to claim rent from the tenants in the building. It is against this decree that the present civil revision petition has been filed. It is against this decree that the present civil revision petition has been filed. ( 4 ) THE challenge on behalf of the petitioner is very clear cut in so far as learned advocate submits that the petitioner has established through oral and documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the Trial Court that all amounts due under the head of rent upto the date when he surrendered possession of the premises have in fact been paid to Saraswathi. Learned advocate submitted that at no point of time was the petitioner given notice of the fact that Saraswathi was not the landlady nor at any stage was the petitioner told that the rent was payable to the respondent and not to Saraswathi. Learned Advocate also submitted that it was condition precedent for the Trial Court to have recorded a finding in this proceeding independently of whatever happened earlier that the respondent is the landlord and that he is entitled in law to claim the rent from the petitioner. He submits that in the absence of the aforesaid, that the decree is bad in law and that it is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT's learned Advocate has relied heavily on the fact that his client has purchased the building as early as in the year 1973. He states that his client has mentioned in his evidence before the Trial Court that the respondent was in fact paying the rent right upto the year 1982 and that it is only thereafter that the defaults commenced and that this was one of the reasons why the respondent had to be evicted from the premises. His contention is that if in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has paid the rent to the wrong person, that this will not absolve the petitioner from the legal liability of paying the rent to the principal landlord who is the respondent and that in this background, the decree is perfectly valid and that the only option open to the petitioner if he so desires is to recover the amounts wrongly paid to Saraswathi. Learned Advocate also submitted that it was unnecessary for any formal notice to be served on the petitioner because it was his client who inducted him into the premises in the year 1975 and that it is false to state that the petitioner was inducted by Saraswathi. Learned Advocate also submitted that it was unnecessary for any formal notice to be served on the petitioner because it was his client who inducted him into the premises in the year 1975 and that it is false to state that the petitioner was inducted by Saraswathi. In these circumstances he submits that no interference is called for from this Court. ( 6 ) IN this rather complicated background, it is necessary for this Court to first set out the correct factual position. There is no conclusive evidence before the Court as to who precisely inducted the petitioner into the premises in 1975. However, the petitioner has in his evidence stated that it was Saraswathi who inducted him into the premises in that year. It is reasonable to assume that this position is correct because the present respondent has been very guarded with regard to what precisely was the position prior to the year 1982. If it was he who has inducted the petitioner into the premises and if as he states, the petitioner was paying rent to him since 1975 then it is rather difficult to reconcile this with his admission in cross-examination that he has not issued any receipts to the petitioner for the rent. On the other hand, it is equally difficult to accept that saraswathi would issue rent receipts to the petitioner if he has not paid the rent to her. Saraswathi is not a total outsider but happens to be the previous owner of the building who was still residing there and under these circumstances it is difficult to ascertain as to what precisely was the arrangement right through that period but the fact remains that it has been established conclusively that right upto the date when the petitioner left the premises in 1984 that all rents were paid by him to Saraswathi. This is the finding of fact which even the trial Court has accepted and which I have no reason to find fault with. ( 7 ) THE real question is as to whether the respondent is entitled to claim rent from the petitioner. For this, he would have to establish in the first instance that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that the tenancy in question was created by the respondent in question. For this, he would have to establish in the first instance that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that the tenancy in question was created by the respondent in question. In fact, the evidence suggests that the tenancy was commenced by Saraswathi. This fully explains as to why the petitioner has continued to pay the rent to her all through and why she has issued the receipts all through. Irrespective of this fact, it was still open to the respondent to have given notice to the petitioner of attornment of tenancy which is a legal precondition in cases where changes take place with regard to the transfer of ownership. The tenancy is a legal obligation between two parties and if a new person comes into the shoes of the landlord, it is very necessary that notice of this fact be given to the opposite party and that the tenancy be attorned. In the absence of this being done, the right on the part of the new landlord to demand and receive the rent cannot be enforced. This is precisely where the learned trial Judge has gone wrong in this first instance, when he observe that on and from the date of the purchase, all tenants in that building would become tenants of the respondents is not the correct position in law in the absence of specific notice from the previous owner or the new owner. More importantly, the learned trial Judge has relied on the finding in the earlier proceeding which finding has merged in the order passed by this Court wherein this Court has very clearly kept the matter wide open in the light of the order passed by this court in the civil revision petition. It was necessary for the learned trial Judge to have recorded the first finding on the basis of independent material adduced in the trial that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant. This unfortunately was not done. ( 8 ) THE question really arises as to whether the payment of the rent to Saraswathi in this background vis-a-vis the petitioner was justified. This unfortunately was not done. ( 8 ) THE question really arises as to whether the payment of the rent to Saraswathi in this background vis-a-vis the petitioner was justified. I have no hesitation in holding that the payment was justified in as far as the record is concerned, it clearly indicates that the petitioner had no notice of the change of ownership nor was the tenancy attorned. I need to however prefix this finding with the observation that whereas the obligation of the petitioner to pay rent upto the date of vacating the premises stands discharged; on the special facts of this case. However even if it is established that he has paid to Saraswathi, it does not in law justify the receipt of the payment by saraswathi, from the petitioner. As far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, the respondent's learned Advocate has relied on the fact that Saraswathi was no longer the owner of the building after 1973 and that therefore assuming without admitting that the petitioner kept making payments of the rent to her, that in law she had no right to receive them. She was under the obligation to either transmit that amount to the present respondent or on the other hand, to give notice to the petitioner that she was no longer entitled to receive the rent since she was not the landlady of the building and to have directed him to pay the rent to the respondent. To this extent therefore, even though the respondent is not entitled to claim the rent from the present petitioner, he would be fully justified in law in recovering that amount from Saraswathi. In the course of the submissions, the respondent's learned advocate did point out to me, as it appears also from the record, that Saraswathi in her turn has instituted some proceedings for revocation of the sale deed executed in the year 1973 and those proceedings are pending. The fact remains, that the transaction did take place in the year 1973 and whether Saraswathi is entitled to have that transaction revoked or not is within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. The fact remains, that the transaction did take place in the year 1973 and whether Saraswathi is entitled to have that transaction revoked or not is within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. The present liability has absolutely nothing to do with that dispute in so far as respondent's learned advocate has clarified before me that the sale transaction will have to be treated as valid until the Court sets it aside and that as of today the respondent has every right to recover the amount which has today been claimed from the petitioner, from Saraswathi. ( 9 ) IN the light of the aforesaid situation, the decree passed against the petitioner is vitiated in so far as. it is impermissible to sustain that decree both on facts and particularly having regard to the position in law. The decree will accordingly have to be set aside and the suit as against the present petitioner be treated as having been dismissed. Under the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner was directed to furnish a Bank guarantee in respect of the decretal amount, that Bank guarantee to stand revoked forthwith. ( 10 ) THE civil revision petition accordingly succeeds. No or deras to costs. --- *** --- .