HARI KRISHAN GARG Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for determination in this revision petition at the instance of the landlord-petitioner is as to whether the tender of arrears of rent on behalf of the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant on the first date of hearing amounts to a valid tender, as envisaged by the relevant provision of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

(2.) Before examining the question posed, some relevant facts would require to be referred to. Daulat Ram, respondent No. 1, was the tenant, he is said to have sublet the premises to his brother, respondent No. 2. Eviction was sought, inter-alia, on the grounds (1) that the tenant had not paid the rent for certain period, and (2) that he had sublet the premises to respondent No. 2.

(3.) On the first date of hearing, the counsel, who represented both the respondents, tendered the amount of arrears in Court on behalf of both the respondents, the landlord-petitioner accepted the tender only on behalf of respondent No. 1, Daulat Ram. The trial Court found as a fact that there had been no subletting by the tenant, in that it was the tenant himself who continued to be in possession of the premises. It, however, allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that there had been no valid tender of the arrears of rent. Two decisions of this Court reported as Ram Gopal v. Ram Parkash, (1963) 65 Pun LR 1112, and Kirpa Ram and Sons, Rewari v. Suraj Bhan, (1979) 81 Pun LR 168, were cited on behalf of the landlord and tenant respectively in support of their respective stand.