Saradindu Mukherjee vs Sm. Kunja Kamini Roy And Ors. on 22 May, 1942
7. The case in Hemendra Nath Mukherjee v. Kumar Nath Roy ('08) 12 C.W.N. 478, was followed by Walmsley and Mukherji JJ. in Kanai Lal Ghose v. Basanta Behari Sen ('26) 13 A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 451, and it was held that on the transfer of a permanent tenure being complete under Section 12, Ben. Ten, Act, the liability of the transferor who was the original tenant and not an assignee, would cease. It was held further that though the original tenant would be absolved from his liability to pay rent as soon as the transfer was complete, still he would remain liable for the performance of other personal obligations created by the lease. As has been said already, even under the English law, the liability of the original tenant to pay rent comes to an end as soon as there is recognition of the assignee as a tenant by the lessor. We think that the effect of a transfer being completed with all the formalities required by Section 12, Ben. Ten. Act, is, that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the lessor to recognize the transferee as a tenant. Of course, if there is a contract between a landlord and a tenant that the transfer shall not be valid and binding unless security is given or some other condition is fulfilled, the original tenant might still remain liable for the rent. But when there is no such condition, the lessor has got no other option but to recognize the transferee.