JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 18/09/2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. (99/2009)/84/2009 whereby, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22/08/2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in civil regular suit No. 135/2002. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against the original tenant Sh. Goverdhan Ram (since deceased), inter alia, alleging that two shops described in para No. 1 of the plaint were let out to the tenant by the previous landlord. It was alleged that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the previous landlord in the year 1995 and the previous landlord informed the tenant about the sale and asked the tenant to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Therefore, the relationship of the landlord and tenant commenced from the year 1995. It was alleged that the defendant has committed default in the payment of rent and has denied the title of the plaintiff. The tenant has materially altered the shop in question by fixing the stair case and has created nuisance as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff requires the premises reasonably and bonafidely. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement, in which the tenant-defendant has denied all the grounds of eviction as alleged in the plaint. It was stated that agreement to sale has not created any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is not the landlord of the defendant. The notice of the alleged sale was given to the defendant neither by the previous landlord nor by the plaintiff. 4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant Sh. M.M. Ranjan submitted that both the Courts below seriously erred in not appreciating the facts that the plaintiff was claiming his right title or interest on the basis of agreement to sale which itself does not create any right title or interest in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that both the Courts below seriously erred in believing the title on the basis of the agreement to sale. It is submitted that both the Courts below seriously erred in believing the title on the basis of the agreement to sale. In view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, no right title or interest can be created. It is submitted that the plaintiff admitted in his statement that no notice of attornment was sent. Ignoring these facts, the Courts below have wrongly held that the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant. 5. On the other hand the learned senior counsel for the respondent Mr. R.K. Agrawal submitted that the defendant has no right to question the title of the landlord, more so, when the defendant himself admitted the title of the landlord in a previous suit filed by him. There is no legal requirement for attornment of tenancy nor any notice was required to be given. This Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. In support of his submissions he placed reliance upon AIR 2015 Raj. 46 Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishan and others and (1997) 5 SCC 329 Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul and Others. 6. I have considered the rival submission made by both the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is beneficial to reproduce the statement of DW-1 Goverdhan, which is as under:- ^^ ;g fd oknh }kjk vius Hkw&Lokeh gksus ds laca/k esa fodz; vuqcU/k i= fnukad 18-5-1995 dks izdV fd;k gS vkSj bl rkjh[k ds mijkUr esjs }kjk oknh dks ifjlj dk ekfyd u gksus ls bUdkj ugha fd;kA ^^ 8. In para No. 1 and 5 of the suit No. 197/98 (81/95) the defendant-tenant (who was plaintiff in that case) has alleged as under: ?1 ? ;g fd oknh lhdj 'kgj esa tkfV;k cktkj esa fLFkr nqdku fdjk;s ij ysdj viuk O;olk; 40 o"kksZa ls djrk vk jgk gSA mDr nqdkuksa dk ekfyd igys galjkt flU/kh Fkk ftlus bUnzpUn lksuh dks fodz; dj nh bUnzlksuh us izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 dks fodz; dj nh o izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 us mDr nqdku o mlds ihNs fLFkr tehu edkukr dks izfroknh la[;k 3 dks fodz; djus dk bdjkj dj dCtk lkSai fn;k gSA ? 5 ? 5 ? ;g fd oknh us izfroknh la[;k 1 lEidZ dj ekeys dh okLrfod fLFkfr dh tkudkjh pkgh] izfroknh la[;k 1 us vius edku o oknh ds pyh vk jgh fdjk;s okyh nqdku dks izfooknh la[;k 3 dks fodz; djuk crk;k rFkk mlh ds }kjk mDr rksM+ QksM+ djuk crk;k o oknh ds fdjk;s ij py jgh nqdku dks Hkh rksM+ dj vUnj cuk;s tk jgs cktkj ds ekxZ cuk dj eq[; lM+d ls tksM+us dh ;kstuk crk;hA ^^ 9. From the above it is revealed that the defendant-tenant himself has admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit shops. In view of this, both the Courts below were right in holding that on the basis of the agreement to sale the landlord tenant relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant. 10. In the above suit the trial Court framed issue No. 2 as follows:- ^^ fd D;k fookfnr nqdku izfroknh dze 1 o 2 }kjk izfroknh dze 3 dks cspku dh tk pqdh gS\ ;fn gka rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gksxk\ ^^ 11. 10. In the above suit the trial Court framed issue No. 2 as follows:- ^^ fd D;k fookfnr nqdku izfroknh dze 1 o 2 }kjk izfroknh dze 3 dks cspku dh tk pqdh gS\ ;fn gka rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gksxk\ ^^ 11. On the aforesaid issue the trial Court gave following findings:- ^^ esjs fopkj ls bl izdj.k esa bl rjg dk izfroknh la[;k 3 ds LokfeRo ij v{ksi djus dk oknh dks crkSj fdjk;snkj dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS D;ksafd oknh ds vuqlkj mDr ifjlj izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 dk Fkk rFkk Lo;a oknh us okn i= dh en la[;k 1 o 5 esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd mDr izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 us izfroknh la[;k 3 ;wlwQ dks mDr nqdku o mlds ihNs tehu o edku dks fodz; djus dk bdjkj dj dCtk lkSai fn;k gSA 14- bl ckr i=koyh ij mDr izfroknh la[;k 1x1, 1@2 dh vksj ls ;gh ckr nkok tokc nk;j fd;k gS fd mUgksaus mDr nqdku dks izfroknh la[;k 3 cspku dj fn;k gS vkSj ;g nqdku vc izfroknh la[;k 3 ;qlqQ dh feyfd;r dh nqdku gS rFkk oknh dks fdjk;k izfooknh la[;k 3 dks gh vnk djuk pkfg;s Fkk ysfdu bl ckr dk bYe gkrs gq;s Hkh iwoZ ekfyd ds uke ls fdjk;k tek djokrk jgk gS tks csdkj gS o oknh fdjk;k vkn;xh esa fMQkYVj gSA 15- bl izdkj mDr tokc nkok ls gh tc oknh ds vuqlkj iwoZ ekfyd dks gh mDr lEink esa ;qlqQ }kjk fd;s tkus okys fuekZ.k ls dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS rks bl rF; dh Li"V rkSj ij lEiqf"V gksrh gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku rFkk mlds ihNs fLFkr ifjlj ij izfroknh la[;k 3 crkSj ekfyd dkfct gS rks ,sls esa oknh dks fdjk;snkj gksrs gq, mDr izfroknh la[;k 3 ds LokfeRo lEcU/kh nLrkost ds ckcr dksbZ vkifRr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA 16- bl izdj.k esa bl rF; fd mDr dfFkr nqdku dks ek= tfj;s uksVsjh izn'kZ ,&1 ds tfj;s gh izfroknh la[;k 3 ds i{k esa izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 us vUrfjr fd;k gS o dCtk lkSaik gS rks mDr iathd`r ugha djok;k gS rks bl ckcr dksbZ fookn ugha gS] bl ckcr vkifRr ek= edku iwoZ ekfyd dks gh djus dk vf/kdkj FkkA ^^ 12. On the basis of the above, the Courts below have not erred in arriving at the conclusions that the defendant-tenant is estoped from saying that on the basis of agreement to sale no right title or interest were created in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts below have also rightly held that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the defendant has no legal right to raise any objection about the agreement relating to the disputed property. 13. So far as the issue of attornment raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned. I find no substance in it. The coordinate bench of this Court in AIR 2015 Rajasthan 46 Laxmi Narayan v. Ram Kishan and others examined this issue in detail and has observed as under:- "10. ............ Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the T.P. Act') dealing with attornment reads as under:- "109. Rights of lessor's transferee.-If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lease elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him; Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased." 11. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased." 11. The above provision provides that on account of transfer of ownership of the premises to the respondent by the previous lessor, the respondent becomes the lessor and becomes entitled to receive the rent in terms of the lease by operation of Section 109 of the T.P. Act. No attornment of tenancy is necessary in law as the above Section creates a statutory attornment and the Section does not insist that the transfer of the lessor's right can take effect only if the tenant attorns, as attornment by tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of lessor's right. However, the Section protects payment of rent by the tenant to the transferor without notice of the transfer. The transfer of ownership of the premises to the respondent by the previous lessor results in statutory attornment by the tenant in favour of the lessor's transferee and consequently jural relationship of landlord and tenant, the said right of transferee under Section 109 is not curtailed or modified by the T.P. Act. 12. This Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma v. Smt. Kamla Acharya, 2001 (2) RLR 136 : AIR 2001 (NOC) 70 (Raj.) held and observed as under:- "17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the rents and profits thereof. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the rents and profits thereof. Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning of agreeing to the attornment. An identical question came up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das, AIR 1997 SC 2437 (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus: "It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The Section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to his Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord." 18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has not legal justification to question oral gift. Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned hereinablve, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra." 13. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment." 14. It is apparent from the above discussion that the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant regarding attornment and the right of the vendee - landlord to file the suit is baseless. 15. It is apparent from the above discussion that the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant regarding attornment and the right of the vendee - landlord to file the suit is baseless. 15. In view of the above, the Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Both the courts below have considered all the factual and legal aspects in the right perspective; findings recorded by the Courts below do not require any interference. The learned senior counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan, for the appellants has also failed to point out any substantial question of law being involved in the present appeal. In the result, the appeal fails, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.