JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, J. The present judgment shall dispose of two civil revision petitions i.e. C.R. Nos. 2443 and 2444 of 2012 as common questions of facts and law are involved in both the revision petitions. Facts are being taken from C.R. No. 2443 of 2012, Rajinder Parkash v. Dial Singh. 2. The present revision petition filed by the landlord is against the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Amloh, who dismissed the eviction petition filed under Section 13 of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act'). Challenge has also been laid to the order of the Appellate authority dated 24.01.2012 who, partly allowed the appeal and passed a conditional order of ejectment by providing that the tenant would deposit the amount of house tax amounting to Rs. 1,773/-, costs of Rs. 100/- alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as interest for the period 1995 till 2012. 3. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the eviction petition was filed under Section 13 of the Act on the strength of the averments that Brij Lal, father of the petitioner was owner of the residential building including the property in dispute which is a shop and part of the building. The respondent had taken the shop on rent from his father vide rent note dated 24.06.1988 and the rent settled was at Rs. 350/- per month. Arrears had been paid till February, 1996 to Brij Lal, who had expired and had executed a registered Will in favour of the applicant on 17/18.01.1995. The tenant had paid rent to the petitioner under receipt admitting him to be landlord and owner but from June, 1997 till filing of the petition on 19.05.1998, he had not paid the house tax amounting to Rs. 1,773/- being 15% of the rental value. 4. In reply, the tenant took the plea that Brij Lal was the landlord and the rent note was with him and he was not aware of any Will executed by Brij Lal. There was a dispute between the various legal representatives of Brij Lal and one Ram Parkash had instituted litigation claiming ownership to the extent of 1/6th share. The widow, daughters and other sons of Brij Lal were necessary parties and the petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition alone. There was a dispute between the various legal representatives of Brij Lal and one Ram Parkash had instituted litigation claiming ownership to the extent of 1/6th share. The widow, daughters and other sons of Brij Lal were necessary parties and the petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition alone. Initially, there was no dispute and rent was paid to him. The rent was paid uptill 1998 to the widow and daughter of Brij Lal and house tax was also paid to them. He was ready to deposit the arrears of rent from September, 1998 till the decision of the civil suit regarding the inheritance. 5. In replication, the petitioner pleaded that the dispute between the legal representatives had no relevance for the decision of the ejectment petition and the claim of Ram Parkash was false and other legal representatives had no concern with the building and the tenant had no right to challenge the Will. The respondent had started paying the rent on the basis of the Will and no rent to the widow and daughters of Brij Lal had been paid and even otherwise, they had no authority. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:- "1- Whether applicant is the sole land-lord of the demise premises? OPA 2- Whether respondent had paid the rent from June,97 till presentation of application? OPR 3- If issue No. 2 is not prove applicant is entitled the relief of ejectment as claimed? OPA 4- Whether respondent is estopped by act and conduct from denying the title of applicant? OPA 5- Whether application has been stayed U/S 10 CPC? OPR 6- Whether application is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR 7- Relief." 6. The petitioner examined the Deed Writer of the Will Som Nath as AW-1 and Pawan Kumar as AW-2 as the attesting witness and appeared himself as AW-3. On the other hand, the respondent-tenant appeared as RW-2 and examined 4 more witnesses namely Om Parkash, Surinder Pal, Kamla Devi-the widow and Ram Parkash-brother of the petitioner. The Rent Controller kept in mind the statement of Om Parkash, the neighbour and co-tenant and came to the conclusion that Exs. R-1 to R41 had been proved which had been issued by Kamla Devi, the wife of the original landlord and who was living with the petitioner himself. The Rent Controller kept in mind the statement of Om Parkash, the neighbour and co-tenant and came to the conclusion that Exs. R-1 to R41 had been proved which had been issued by Kamla Devi, the wife of the original landlord and who was living with the petitioner himself. It was noticed that she had not appeared for cross examination on the ground that she was ill and the rent thus had been paid to the mother, other brothers and daughters of the deceased by the tenant. In view of the fact that there was litigation between the parties and there was some confusion as to the inheritance of Brij Lal the tenant could not be made to suffer. Whether he was the sole landlord or not was to be decided in separate litigation and thus, the tenant having paid the rent from June 1997, could not be burdened by asking him to pay the rent twice. Resultantly, the relief of ejectment was denied. However, it was held that the petitioner was the landlord subject to any other contrary order passed in any other litigation to avoid confusion regarding the rights and the petition was dismissed. 7. In appeal, the Appellate Authority noticed that the receipts Exs. R-1 to R-44 bore the rubber stamp of B.L. Sharma and were signed by Kamla Devi. Some receipts bore the signatures of Ram Parkash apart from signatures of Indra Sharma, Uma Sharma and Naresh Sharma, who were legal representatives of Brij Lal. Accordingly, by noting that the litigation regarding inheritance of Brij Lal had not attained finality and the tenant at some occasion had given rent to Kamla Devi, no fault could be found in the conduct of the tenant. It was held that the benefit would go to the tenant as he was in a fix as to whom to give the rent to and if he had given rent to one of the heirs as per the receipts Exs. R-1 to R-44, it was held that he had paid the rent @ Rs. 350 per month w.e.f. June, 1997 till the presentation of the petition. R-1 to R-44, it was held that he had paid the rent @ Rs. 350 per month w.e.f. June, 1997 till the presentation of the petition. On the issue of house tax, it was noticed that there was a specific recital that the tenant was liable to pay the house tax and in the reply filed by the tenant, it had not been disputed that he was not liable to pay and rather there was no averment that payment had been made. It was noticed that the petitioner had placed on record Ex.A-20 showing that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1769.85 towards house tax for the year 1995-96 and another receipts Exs. A-21 to A-23 also showed payment of house tax. Accordingly, a finding was recorded that in view of the averment of claim of Rs. 1,773/- as arrears of house tax for the period 1995-96 to 1997-98 were part of the complete rent and, therefore, there was not a complete deposit by the tenant. Accordingly, the direction was issued that the said amount be deposited alongwith the costs as assessed vide order dated 05.09.1998. The opportunity given to the tenant was on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002 (5) SCC 440 . The amount was to be deposited alongwith interest on 15.02.2012. On non- deposit, the tenant was liable to be ejected. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that there was a wilful default on the part of the tenant and, therefore, the Appellate Authority was not justified in giving an opportunity once the amount of house tax had been agreed to be paid. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Kader v. G.D. Govindaraj (D) by L.Rs., AIR 2002 SC 2442 and it is submitted that in view of the relationship of landlord tenant being denied, no opportunity should have been granted to the tenant to deposit the rent. Reference has also been made to Smt. Anar Devi v. Nathu Ram, 1994 (4) SCC 250 to contend that under Section 116 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title. 9. Reference has also been made to Smt. Anar Devi v. Nathu Ram, 1994 (4) SCC 250 to contend that under Section 116 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title. 9. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no dispute regarding the proposition of law that the tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title. However, in the present case, the tenant's plea filed was that there was a dispute inter se the legal representatives and, therefore, on account of lack of clarity, the rent was paid to the mother of the petitioner and his brother and sisters and rent receipts had been issued. The Courts below have noticed that the legal representatives have appeared in favour of the tenant and admitted that they had received the rent. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the Courts below do not warrant any interference. It is not a case of a outright denial of the relationship of landlord tenant. 10. The judgment referred to in Anar Devi's case (supra), would not be applicable since in the present case, the tenant is not denying the status as a tenant but only seeking a clarification as to whom he has to pay the rent to. Brij Lal, the original land owner, died in the year 1996 and rent has been deposited by the tenant, as noticed by both the Courts below. It is only the arrears of house tax which was due and the directions have been issued to deposit the same in view of the binding precedent of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) whereby, it has been laid down by the Apex Court that provisional assessment has to be there at the initial stage and opportunity is to be afforded to the tenant to make good the rent before ordering ejectment. The tender of rent is to be there on the date fixed. If there is a dispute regarding the amount provisionally fixed, an opportunity has to be given to the tenant to make good the deficit if later on it is found that in final adjudication, there is a variation with the interim or provisional order. In such circumstances, discretion which has been exercised by the Appellate Authority is valid and an opportunity has necessarily to be given. 11. In such circumstances, discretion which has been exercised by the Appellate Authority is valid and an opportunity has necessarily to be given. 11. The judgment in Abdul Kader's case (supra) is also not applicable as the tenant had only tendered the rent but not the amount of taxes. The eviction application was allowed on the ground of non-payment of the taxes by holding that it was part of the rent once it has been agreed to be paid by the tenant and thus, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the observations made in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) that an opportunity has to be given. 12. Accordingly, keeping in view the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned orders passed by the Courts below and both the revision petitions are dismissed.