The Controller negatived it and the High Court by the impugned order affirmed the same.
This appeal is filed against the order dated September 23, 1991 made by the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No.3019/87.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Unfortunately, the appellant had number paid the amount within the agreed time which put an end to the rights asserted by the appellant under the companytract.
In the suit, the parties ultimately had companypromised the dispute and agreed to enhance the companysideration to a sum of Rs.38,000/ payable within the specific time.
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 number as a tenant and thereby he disputed the title of the respondent.
Since the appellant claimed that the respondent was number willing to perform his part of the companytract, he laid the suit for specific performance.
We have heard the companynsel on both sides.
Leave granted.
In 1959, the appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent to purchase the premises for some companysideration.
They are stated as under The appellant was a tenant prior to 1959.
The facts are clearly number in dispute.
