Mehar Singh, J. - (1.)THE demised premises are two upper storey rooms situate in Rewari. The same were let by Piare Lal to Kesho Ram Gupta, tenant at a rental of Rs. 15.1.5 paise per mensem. The demised premises in Court auction were purchased by the firm Hoya Ram -Shiv Ram. The auction was held on May 26,1961, on which date the highest bid of the Applicant firm was accepted. The sale was confirmed in favour of the Applicant firm on May 17, 1962. In November, 1962, the Applicant firm wanted possession of the demised premises pursuant to the sale of the same in its favour at a Court auction. The Respondent, Kesho Ram Gupta, tenant, resisted the attempt of the Applicant firm to obtain physical possession of the demised premises on the ground that he held the same under a tenancy. In the meantime, the original owner Piare Lal on October 31, 1963, made an application for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of non -payment of arrears of rent after Asauj 12, 2019 B.K., equivalent to November 10, 1962, up to which date he admitted that the rent had been paid to him. The tenant filed his written statement to that application on December 6, 1963, in which he took the stand that the demised premises had been sold in Court auction to the Applicant firm on May 26, 1961, and the confirmation of the sale had taken place on May 17, 1962. So he took the position that the previous owner Piare Lal was no longer his landlord. The application of Piare Lal was dismissed.
(2.)THE facts are not quite clear but somehow not until March 19, 1964, did the Applicant firm give notice to the tenant of its having purchased the demised premises and demanding rent. It was after that, on April 27, 1964, that it proceeded to make an application for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on various grounds of which the only one that now requires consideration is the non -payment of arrears of rent.
The Applicant firm claimed arrears of rent from May 26, 1961, the date of the Court auction of the demised premises in its favour, down to the date of the eviction application of April 27, 1984. The tenant pleaded that he had paid rent to the previous owner from May 26, 1961, down to November, 1962, and the balance he paid before the Rent Controller in the terms of the proviso to Clause (1) of Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. III of 1949). The Rent Controller as also the appellate authority have concurred in accepting this statement of fact by the tenant. They have relied on Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act to come to the conclusion that as the tenant made payment of the rent bona fide to the previous owner of the demised premises, so there has been no default in payment of arrears of rent by him within the meaning of Clause (i) of Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Act No. III of 1949. The result has been the dismissal of the eviction application of the Applicant firm and this is a revision application by the Applicant firm against the order of the appellate authority.

(3.)IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the Applicant firm relying on Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 608, that title to the demised premises passed to the Applicant firm on May 26, 1961, the date of the auction of the same, after the confirmation of the sale in its favour on May 17, 1962. The learned Counsel has pressed that the title to the demised premises having passed thus to the Applicant firm on and from May 26, 1961, if the tenant has made payment of the rent to a wrong person and in spite of the opportunity to avail of the proviso to Clause (i) of Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Act No. III of 1949, he has not paid or tendered on the first date of the hearing of eviction application the arrears, such as he wrongly paid to the previous owner Piare Lal, he must be evicted because there has not been compliance with proviso to Clause (i), Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of East Punjab Act No. III of 1949. The learned Counsel has contended that Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act is of no avail to the tenant because that section has not been applied in Haryana within which State now is the town of Rewari where the demised premises are situate. The reply on the side of the tenant is that the tenant made the payment of rent in good faith to the previous owner because in the meantime he had no -knowledge of the transfer of the property in favour of the Applicant firm and, therefore, the authorities below were right in proceeding on the basis of Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act.