The appellant entered into possession as tenant in 1944 and the monthly rent of the premises was Rs.
R. 17 from the District Rent and Managing Officer, Ludhiana, informing him that as the sale was companyfirmed by the Competent Officer on October 3, 1956 he should pay the rent to the respondent from that date.
1.19 to the Custodian as rent for the first two days of October and had accepted the respondent as his landlord from October 3, 1956 and begun to deposit rent from that date.
12 per month to the respondent who did number accept it but demanded Rs.
The bid was approved on October 3, 1956 and the sale certificate was issued to the auction purchaser on December 4, 1956, On October 3, 1956 the appellant received a letter Ex.
He applied for amendment of his pleadings to plead the above fact relying upon a ruling of this Court reported in Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L. J. Johnson, .
In this way the appellant deposited rent for 32 months from October 30, 1956 to June 30, 1959 at Rs.
It was dismissed by the order Now under appeal.
under Section 13 of the Act for the eviction of the appellant.
It held that the appellant had paid Rs.
4 I2 0.
The Appellate Authority did number accept the companytention.
240 and Rs.
The original landlord became an evacuee and as the property was companyposite, the District Competent Officer auctioned this property on May 19, 1956 and the highest bid was by the respondent.
per month and it had number been paid from October 3, 1956.
He companytended that if the companymencement of the tenancy was takes to be the date on which the certificate was granted to the auction purchaser the amount of rent deposited by him was in excess of the amount due from him and he had number forfeited the tenancy.
The amount deposited was found to be short by Rs.
24 which were refused by the respondent.
The High Court of Punjab by the judgment under appeal dated April 10, 1961 dismissed a revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Appellate Authority companyfirming the order of eviction passed against the appellant by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949.
144 on May 25, 1959 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana vide Exs.
12 and number Rs.
Meanwhile, on May 22, 1959 the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller.
Only one question appears to have been raised in the High Court namely, when did title pass to the auction purchaser ?
R. 18 and R. 20 .
12 and another for Rs.
He further alleged that he had sent a money order for Rs.
He stated in that application that the tent of the shop was Rs.
He held the other grounds number proved but ordered the eviction because the appellant had deposited the second amount three days after the petition of the respondent had been filed for eviction and the total amount deposited was number equal to the full rent, companyts and interest as required by the Act.
The High Court dismissed the revision application holding that title passed to the auction purchaser on the companyfirmation or the sale and number when the sale certificate was issued to him.
The Controller by his order, dated April 12, 1960 held that the standard rent was Rs.
He also alleged that the appellant had made material alterations in the shop and put it to use other than that for which it was taken on rent.
The appellant deposited on July 16, 1958, Rs.
The tenant appealed and companytended that the tenancy companymenced on December 4, 1956 and number on October 3, 1956.
Ludhiana.
20 per month.
Hidayatullah, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant is the tenant of the respondent and occupies a shop situated on the Grand Trunk Road, Ludhiana.
He was held, therefore, to be estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the title of the respondent between October 3 and December 4, 1956.
12 per month.
The appellant asked for relief against forfeiture but it was rejected in view of the ruling of the Punjab High Court in Debi v. Desa Ramji Lal, .
The tenant filed a Revision Petition in the High Court.
The appellant alleged that he had tendered rent at Rs.
