Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - I Facts in Brief

1. The revision petition is against the concurrent orders of eviction passed against the tenant. Originally tenancy was in favour of one Kartar Devi and another Inder Chand Kalra. The property was claimed by the bank as a assignee through a compromise decree brought between the bank and the Landlord through a decree dated 17.9.1984. The compromise in favour of the bank purported to transfer the right of 6/10th share of the landlord and 4/10th share as a mortgagee through memorandum dated 23.7.1985. The tenant was not a party to the compromise. The tenant was informed through a notice issued on 26.11.1991 received on 4.12.1991 by the tenant that the rent shall be paid to the Bank.

2. The landlord filed a petition for eviction stating that the tenant had not paid rent inspite of notice and that he was in default from 7.9.1984. The tenant took up a plea that the original landlord’s daughter Veena Devi claimed herself to be the landlord and was collecting rent. Originally, the tenant filed a written statement contending that the rent was Rs. 90/- as being paid to Veena Devi but later filed an application for amendment to the written statement and contended that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month.

3. The Rent Controller found that the case of tenancy must be taken as established by virtue of the fact that the original landlords Kartar Devi, Inder Singh had been parties to a compromise, in terms of which they transferred the right to the bank and therefore, the bank was competent to treat itself as the landlord and demand rent. Adverting to the quantum of rent, the Rent Controller drew an adverse inference against the tenant in not examining Veena Devi or filing the document of lease purported to contain a reference to the rent as Rs. 60/- and held that the tenant had been paying rent only from 1.1.1992 @ Rs. 60/- and there had been a short payment of rent which is malafide. The eviction order was issued which was confirmed in the appeal by the appellate court. The decisions of both the courts make a further reference to the fact that the tenant had filed inter-pleader suit making the bank and Veena Devi as defendants to adjudge on who the owner was and under whom the plaintiff was required to attorn the tenancy. The appellate authority observed that even the inter-pleader suit has been dismissed and there was no bonafides in the tenant in not paying the rent to the bank and found eviction as an inevitable consequence.

II Contention of tenant in revision

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that after the dismissal of inter-pleader suit, they preferred an appeal and the appellate authority set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the matter by judgment dated 24.2.1997. He states that he has no instruction about the fate of the suit after remand. He would contend that he is willing to accept the rent payable as Rs. 90/- and that in terms of the judgment of the supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan V. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 2) PLR 370, the rent determined by the court ought to be permitted to be paid through a direction and if only the direction is not complied with, the order of eviction could be issued. He would therefore, seek for an appropriate direction from the court for determination of the amount that is payable.

III Contention on behalf of the landlord

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has very serious objection to the offer and would contend that there was simply no bonafides on the part of the tenant to deny the title when his landlords, namely, Kartar Devi and Inder Singh were party to the compromise and there was no case for him that he was continuing to pay the rent from 17.9.1984 to the said two persons. Even after the notice issued by the bank, the tenant was not paying the rent as directed and he took a false plea that the rent payable was only Rs. 60/- and that too only to Veena Devi. Vee