ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard the counsel on both sides. This appeal is filed against the order dated September 23, 1991 made by the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No.3019/87. The facts clearly not in dispute. They are stated as under.

2. The appellant was a tenant prior to 1959. In 1959, the appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent to purchase the premises for some consideration. Since the appellant claimed that the respondent was not willing to perform his part of the contract, he laid the suit for specific performance. In the suit, the parties ultimately had compromised the dispute and agreed to enhance the consideration to a sum of Rs. 38;000/- payable within the specific time. Unfortunately, the appellant had not paid the amount within the agreed time which put an end to the rights asserted by the appellant under the contract.

3. When an application for eviction under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act was filed, the appellant raised preliminary objection that his tenancy rights had got merged in his right as an agreement- holder and he was in possession of the suit- premises as an agreement-holder and not as a tenant and thereby he disp