ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the judgment & recovery certificate dated 4.3.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Banswara and appellate judgment & recovery certificate dated 5.5.2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Banswara, whereby the petition for eviction filed by the respondent has been accepted and the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed respectively. 2. The respondent No.3 - landlord filed petition under the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') against the appellant No.1 Abdul Hameed inter-alia with the averments that the suit property was purchased by him on 15.10.1998 through registered sale deed from Smt. Guljan Bai since then he has been the sole owner of the suit property. 3. The suit was filed by Smt. Guljan Bai against Abdul Hameed alleging him to be a trespasser, in the said suit the Court held Abdul Hameed as tenant of Smt. Guljan Bai. The applicant - Iqarar Mohammed had filed application in the said suit, since then the tenant was aware of the fact about transfer of the property by Smt. Guljan Bai, however, the rent was not paid; on 12.6.2008, notice in this regard was sent, however, still rent was not paid. 4. A response was filed by Abdul Hameed denying the relationship of the landlord and tenant between him and Iqarar Mohammed and it was claimed that the ownership of the property lies in Fatma Bai and that he was tenant of Fatma Bai and since beginning of his tenancy has been paying rent @ Rs.70/- per month to her; the application has been filed for appropriating the property, which was required to be rejected. 5. Where after, the appellant No.2 Smt. Fatma Bai was impleaded as party respondent to the original application, wherein she also filed her reply inter-alia indicating that the applicant - Iqarar Mohammed was not the landlord and claimed herself to be the landlord and indicated that she was getting rent of the property. 6. A rejoinder to the reply was filed by applicant - Iqarar Mohammed. 7. 6. A rejoinder to the reply was filed by applicant - Iqarar Mohammed. 7. The Tribunal framed six issues and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that there was landlord tenant relationship between the applicant and Abdul Hameed and that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent and denied the landlord tenant relationship and therefore, was liable to be evicted and consequently, directed eviction of petitioner No.1 of the suit premises. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant Abdul Hameed and Smt. Fatma, who claimed herself to be the owner of the property filed a joint appeal against the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal. 9. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Tribunal, in an elaborate and well considered judgment dealing with each and every aspect raised by the petitioners and otherwise arising in the dispute, negated each and every issue raised by the petitioners / arising in the case against the petitioners and upheld the judgment & recovery certificate passed by the Rent Tribunal. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgments passed by the two Tribunals below are based on wrong premise and therefore, the same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 11. It was submitted that it was apparent on record that the property in question was let out by the petitioner No.2 to petitioner No.1 since beginning and the rent of Rs.70/- per month was being paid to petitioner No.2, which was accepted by her in her written statement and therefore, besides the fact that Iqarar Mohammed was not the landlord, as the rent was being paid to Smt. Fatma Bai, there was no question of any default in payment of rent on part of petitioner No.1 so as to order the eviction of petitioner No.1. 12. Further submissions were made that the petitioner No.1 never attorned in favour of Iqarar Mohammed as landlord and therefore, there was no question of payment of any rent and maintainability of the petition for eviction by him and therefore, the judgments impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 13. Further submissions were made that a bare look at the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of Iqarar Mohammed would indicate that the same is a sham transaction and therefore, on such a document, eviction could not have been ordered by the Rent Tribunal. 13. Further submissions were made that a bare look at the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of Iqarar Mohammed would indicate that the same is a sham transaction and therefore, on such a document, eviction could not have been ordered by the Rent Tribunal. It was prayed that the judgments impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents landlord supported the judgments impugned, it was submitted that both the Tribunals below have thoroughly considered the issues raised and have recorded the finding of fact and therefore, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the writ petition deserve to be dismissed. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. A bare perusal of the judgment passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Banswara in the suit filed by petitioner No.1 - Abdul Hameed would reveal that the petitioner No.1 came out with a specific case that the property in question was let out to the petitioner No.1 by Smt. Guljan Bai and that he was her tenant wherein the rent was Rs.70/- per month. Though, Smt. Guljan Bai denied the claim made by the petitioner No.1, the trial court came to be conclusion that the petitioner No.1 was tenant of Smt. Guljan Bai and that the rent of the premises was Rs.70/- per month and directed that the petitioner No.1 (plaintiff therein) be not evicted without due process of law. 17. During the pendency of the suit, the fact came on record that Smt. Guljan Bai had transferred the property to respondent No.3 Iqarar Mohammed. Once the fact about Smt. Guljan Bai being the landlord of the petitioner No.1 was established in a suit filed by the petitioner No.1 himself, the plea sought to be raised by him now claiming Smt. Fatma Bai as her landlord, is per se baseless and cannot be accepted. 18. Once the fact about Smt. Guljan Bai being the landlord of the petitioner No.1 was established in a suit filed by the petitioner No.1 himself, the plea sought to be raised by him now claiming Smt. Fatma Bai as her landlord, is per se baseless and cannot be accepted. 18. So far as the plea raised regarding the petitioner No.1 not attorning to respondent No.3 despite the property having been sold by Smt. Guljan Bai to him and its effect is concerned, this Court in LRs of Guru Bux Singh v. Khem Singh : 2014(3) WLN 34 (Raj.), laid down as under :- "Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the T.P. Act'), on which, strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant, 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, prays 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." 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. This Court in the case of Ram Saran (supra) 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. Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question came up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das (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 him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord." 18. The Section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. 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 (6) Mohd. Hussain v. Uakoob, reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, 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 herein above, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra." 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." 19. In view thereof, there is no substance in the plea raised by the petitioner No.1. 20. So far as the objections raised about validity of the transfer executed by Smt. Guljan Bai in favour of respondent No.3 - landlord is concerned, despite the fact that the fact of transfer came before the Court in the suit filed by the petitioner No.1 wherein on account of death of Guljan Bai during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner No.2 was also impleaded as party to the said suit, no steps apparently were taken seeking cancellation / avoidance of the said sale deed executed in favour of the landlord Iqarar Mohammed. Besides this, the plea sought to be raised regarding the validity of the sale deed could even otherwise cannot be examined by the Rent Tribunal within its limited jurisdiction. 21. Besides this, the plea sought to be raised regarding the validity of the sale deed could even otherwise cannot be examined by the Rent Tribunal within its limited jurisdiction. 21. The very fact that petitioner No.1-tenant has been joined by petitioner No.2 claiming herself to be the landlord in filing the present appeal itself speaks volumes, wherein both despite being party to the litigation launched by petitioner No.1 himself, were taken pleas contrary to the stand taken in the said suit. 22. As already noticed herein-before, the Appellate Tribunal has thoroughly considered the issues raised / arising in the present matter and learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any perversity in any finding so as to require interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.