In December 1975 Amar Chand died.
In other words, he held that the rent tendered by companynsel for and on behalf of all the respondents was number a legal tender in terms of Section 13 sub section 2 i proviso and the undisputed tenant alone ought to have ten dered the rent.
The High Court accordingly affirmed the order of eviction.
The landlord did number accept the amount but made the following endorsement 1 do number accept the tender as it is neither legal number valid.
The appellate authority held that the amount deposited on behalf of the three respondents was number valid since Saligram was a stranger.
With these findings the Controller accepted the eviction petition and directed the tenants eviction from the premises.
After companysid ering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Controller found numbersubstance in the allegations that the tenant has made any material alteration impairing the utility of the building.
They also refuted the allegations as to material alterations affecting the value and utility of the premises.
The tender must be deemed to be by the tenant and his associates should be ignored.
The action was brought against Gulab Chand and Bhanwar Lal, the original tenants and Sohan Lal, Jagan Nath and Balkar Singh alleged to be the sub tenants inducted into the premises without companysent of the landlord.
The High Court did number accept the submission.
v. Ram Prakash and Ors.,
The respondent No.
Onkar Mal is also a case of eviction based on arrears of rent as one of the grounds.
Since the eviction was also based on other grounds, he allowed the parties to lead evidence on all the questions.
The eviction was also sought on the ground that the tenant has made alterations resulting in material impairment in the value and utility of the premises.
1963 RLR 1112 and Punjab Rajasthan Goods Carriers Ors.
He also accepted the case of unautho rised sub letting and held that respondent No.
They are appel lants 1 and 2 in this appeal.
By following some of the previous cases, it held that under the proviso the payment or tender must be made exclusively by or on behalf of the tenant and on his account.
The appellants case was that the shop was taken on lease by Amar Chand as partner of the firm M s Amar Chand in which Amar Chand, Diwan Chand and Saligram were all partners in the business from the very companymencement of tenancy.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
On the question of original tenancy agreement, he found that the original tenant was number in the partnership firm of which Amar Chand was partner, but Amar Chand took the premises in his personal name and the tenancy was there fore personal to him.
v. Onkar Mal, 1977 RLR 1 In both the cases, the High Court has held that the tenant as defined under the Act companyld deposit or tender the amount under the proviso and number a stranger.
The appeal preferred by the tenant was disposed of on a preliminary point, that is, on the validity of the amount deposited by the companymon companynsel for the parties on the first date of hearing of the case.
His case was that appel lants 1 and 2 inducted Saligram appellant No 3 as a sub tenant and delivered exclusive possession of the shop prem ises.
The order Of the appellate authority has been companyfirmed by the High Court by dismissing the tenants revision in limine.
The companyrectness of that view has been challenged in this appeal.
They denied that Saligram was inducted as subtenant.
The landlord brought an action for eviction under section 13 of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent, sub letting etc.
In November 1976 he also died leaving behind his widow Pushpa Devi and his minor son Yashpal.
On the validity of the amount tendered on behalf of all respondents including Saligram it was held that the tender was number legal and valid since Saligram was number a tenant.
Following those decisions, the appellate authority companyfirmed the eviction and dismissed the appeal without examining whether Saligram was also a tenant, or whether the original tenancy was in favour of the partnership firm of which Amar Chand was a partner.
In Ram Gopal case the arrears of rent were tendered by Chetan Ram, the tenant, his son Ram Bhagat alongwith Banarsi Das and Dhani Ram who were said to be the strangers.
His brother Diwan Chand succeeded to the tenancy rights.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the instant case, the appellate authority being bound by those two authorities has rejected the amount tendered by companynsel as being invalid.
On this aspect, the appellate authority had little discretion in view of the two decisions of the Punjab Haryana High Court Ram Gopal Ors.
The payment or tender made by the tenant alongwith the strangers and also on their account would be in companytravention of the proviso and invalid.
They tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and companyts of the proceedings on the first date of hearing of the case.
The undisputed tenant did number attend the companyrt despite due service of numberice and was proceeded ex parte.
263 of 1983.
The rent agreed was Rs.45 per month.
Milkhi Ram the respondent in this appeal is the landlord of the premises companysisting of a shop at Ludhiana.
3243 of 1982.
3 was a sub tenant inducted into the premises without companysent of the landlord.
The tenant alongwith Saligram by obtaining leave have preferred this appeal.
The point at issue relates to the validity of the arrears of rent deposited by the tenant under the proviso.
Since the validity of the deposit made by the tenant under the proviso to sub section 2 i of Section 13 is in question and which in turn depends upon the principle laid down by the High Court in the said two authorities, it is companyvenient at this stage to have those cases properly analy sed.
K. Mehta, Aman Vachher, Atul Nanda and K.L. Verma for the Respondents.
K. Ramamurthi and S.K. Agarwal for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. The appeal companycerns the scope and companystruction of Section 13 sub section 2 i proviso of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 called shortly as The Act .
The landlord refused to accept that amount on the ground that the tenant was Chetan Ram alone and as the amount was ten dered by persons other than Chetan Ram as well, there was numberproper tender.
In Febru ary 1958 the shop was taken on rent by Amar Chand.
