( 5 )
ALLIS v. SIGERA.C. B., Colombo, 1,129.
Purchase of property subject to hose—Right to sue lessee for rent—Assignment.
A purchaser of property subject to a lease acquires a right to therents and profits of such property accruing after such purchasewithout any assignment of the contract of lease.
T N this case the owner of certain premises, subject to a lease infavour of the defendant, sold the premises to the plaintiff.The defendant pleaded that he- was not liable to the plaintiff forrent, inasmuch as there was no special assignment to him of thelease in the conveyance. The Court below held that the plaintiffwas entitled to sue. On appeal by defendant—
Wendt, Acting S.-G., for appellant.
Domkorst, for respondent.
17th June, 1897. Withebs, J.—
This judgment is, in my opinion, right. It was argued that thesale of the house passed no interest in the contract of lease underwhich the house was held, and as the purchaser had taken noassignment of the lease he could not sue for the rent stipulatedin the lease. But the passage cited in Voet (XIX. 2, 19) seems tobe in point. He says that with the dominum of a land the fruitsnaturally pass, and if there is a tenant on it the rents take the
( 6 )
place of the fruits. Plaintiff’s right may not rest on the contractof lease, but as long as the tenant holds the premises with notioeof the sale he cannot be heard to say that he should not pay therent to the purchaser. The vendor has sold his interest, and withit the right to receive the rents. In sections beyond in the samebook and title is to be found the authority of one of several lessonsto sue for his share of the rent.
ALLIS v. SIGERA