D. P. HIREMATH, J. ( 1 ) THE short point for consideration in this revision petition is whether even after evictionorder was passed by the Rent Control Courtagainst the present revision petitioner his continuationin possession of the petition premisesand payment of rent would amount to revival ofold tenancy or renewal of tenancy. ( 2 ) THE facts briefly are to be found in the order of the Court below which is now impugned. In Execution Petition No. 60/1980 the decree-holder-respondent took out execution for evictionof the petitioner in pursuance of the decreehe had obtained in HRC 62/1974 before thecourt of I Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum. the decree isdated 19-11-1974 which was an ex-pane decree. The suit filed by the petitioner to set-aside thatex-parte decree on the ground that he was misledby the decree-holder-landlord or fraud was practicedon him was not upheld by the Court. Thusdecree for eviction passed on 19-11-1974 stood. Till 1930 it appears execution was not taken outby the respondent-decree-holder. When executionapplication was filed the petitioner-Judgmentdebtor contended that originally he hadtaken premises on rent on a monthly rental of Rs. 14/ -. He paid at that rate till 1973. It was enhancedto Rs. 16/- per month which was the rateof rent when the decree for eviction came to bepassed. After this eviction decree there wasrevival of the tenancy on fresh terms in 1975fixing the rental at Rs. 20/- per month. Again on1-1-1978 the terms of the tenancy revived fixingthe rent at Rs. 25/- per month. The decree-holderhad also issued rent receipts and therefore thiscontention of the petitioner-Judgment Debtorhas all the force. ( 3 ) THE Executing Court considering the contentions of the parties and also the material placed before it came to the conclusion thatthere was neither revival of the tenancy nor a newtenancy was created. Even though the petitioneralso disputed the identity of the property thecourt below did not find any merit in that contention. As the Executing Court allowed the executionof the decree in question thejudgment-Debtor has come up in revision to thiscourt. ( 4 ) THE Judgment-Debtor gave evidence as to the rent that he was paying previous to the passing of the decree and also rent that the startedpaying from 1-1-1975. Though he contended thatfrom 1-1-1978 he was paving at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month excepting his oral evidence thereis no other evidence on record. ( 4 ) THE Judgment-Debtor gave evidence as to the rent that he was paying previous to the passing of the decree and also rent that the startedpaying from 1-1-1975. Though he contended thatfrom 1-1-1978 he was paving at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month excepting his oral evidence thereis no other evidence on record. As far as paymentof rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- is concerned thepetitioner relied on receipts passed by therespondent which are printed and which say thatthey are towards payment of rent. They are inmarathi. From this circumstance alone thepetitioner now wants to contend that there wascreation of new tenancy. In this behalf, in the trialcourt the decision in the case of Chitra Talkies vdurga Dass. , AIR 1973 Allahabad 40 was reliedupon wherein there was clear and unambiguousindependent evidence to prove the tenancy inas-much as the partners had met on certain day andagreed that there should be a new tenancy. Therewere also letters that were written by the allegedtenant with regard to the tenancy. Therefore thecourt below distinguished the facts of that caseiscon the facts of this case and found that simplybecause after decree the rent was paid at the rateof Rs. 20/- it did not necessarily follow that thenew tenancy was created. In order to meet thiscontention the respondent's counsel invited mymention to the order of this Court in C. R. P4364/1982 filed against the Judgment and decreeof the Small Causes Court in Small Cause Suitno. 16 of 1981 in which the decree-holder-respondent had sued the Judgment-Debtor formesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. Itwas contended that in that suit the petitionernever raised a contention that he was not liable topay mesne profits but he was liable to pay onlythe rent as a tenant. However, when the decreewas passed for mesne profits in the revision petitionaforesaid the question was with regard to Rs. 200/- paid through a cheque by the Judgment-Debtor on 24-1-1980. Incidentally it was also observedthat even though an eviction order waspassed, the tenant would continue to be tenanttill he is actually thrown out of the premises andhis possession cannot be held wrongful till he isthrown out Therefore, the question of awardingmesne profits does not arise in such a case. 200/- paid through a cheque by the Judgment-Debtor on 24-1-1980. Incidentally it was also observedthat even though an eviction order waspassed, the tenant would continue to be tenanttill he is actually thrown out of the premises andhis possession cannot be held wrongful till he isthrown out Therefore, the question of awardingmesne profits does not arise in such a case. Itwould thus only go to show that unless there is independentand dear evidence as to the revival ofthe tenancy or creation of new tenancy the terminologyused by the tenant while paying rent orby the landlord while receiving rent would not be a conclusive factor. Even under Section 106 of transfer of Property Act under which a notice lor termination was required to be issued before coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Control act, if rent was received after determination of tenancy by that fact alone it was settled law that there was no waiver of notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. It is no doubt true that receipts have been passed by decree-holder and that he had received rent of Rs. 20/- as contended by the petitioner. As observed by this Court in the civil revision petition aforesaid he continues to be a tenant till he is actually evicted in pursuance of the eviction decree. Therefore even if the rents were paid after the decree was passed that alone would not be sufficient to show or prove that there was revival or renewal of tenancy. There is bo other evidence to come to the conclusion that the parties intended that the tenancy should be revived. In that view of the matter, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the contention of the petitioner. There is no merit in this civil revision petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. The petitioner is given six months time to vacate the premises. --- *** --- .