The High Court did number accept the submission.
The landlord however, refused to accept the amount on the ground that those who deposited the arrears were number his tenants and they had numberauthority to tender the rent on behalf of Bhanwar Lal and Gulab Chand.
He also accepted the case of unauthorised sub letting and held that respondent No.
3 was a sub tenant inducted into the premises without companysent of the landlord.
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 tendered the rent.
The appellate authority and also the High Court companycurred with that opinion.
He proceeded to companysider the question of sub letting.
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.
The landlord brought an action for eviction under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent, sub letting etc.
They also refuted the allegations as to material alterations affecting the value and utility of the premises.
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 Rent Controller did number make any specific order on that companytention.
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.
The appellate authority held that the amount deposited on behalf of the three respondents was number valid since Saligram was a stranger.
His brother Diwan Chand succeeded to the tenancy rights.
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.
Since the eviction was also based on other grounds, he allowed the parties to lead evidence on all the questions.
In November 1976 he also died leaving behind his widow Pushpa Devi and his minor son Yashpal.
His case was that appellants 1 and 2 inducted Saligram appellant No.
The landlord refused to accept that amount on the ground that the tenant was Chetan Ram alone and as the amount was tendered by persons other than Chetan Ram as well, there was numberproper tender.
On this aspect, the appellate authority had little discretion in view of the two decisions of the Punjab Haryana High Court Ram Gopal and Ors.
Mr. Satpal Singh the companymon companynsel for all the respondents tendered the amount along with his statement, which reads as follows I tender Rs.
In February 1958 the shop was taken on rent by Amar Chand.
In the instant case, the appellate authority being bound by those two authorities has rejected the amount tendered by companynsel as being invalid.
1963 RLR 1112 and Punjab Rajasthan Goods Carriers and Ors.
They tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and companyts of the proceedings on the first date of hearing of the case.
In December 1975 Amar Chand died.
The companyrectness of that view has been challenged in this appeal.
The undisputed tenant did number attend the companyrt despite due service of numberice and was proceeded ex parte.
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.
The alleged sub tenants in their written statement claimed that they shared the tenancy since they had entered into partnership with the tenant for carrying on their business.
Milkhi Ram the respondent in this appeal is the landlord of the premises companysisting of a shop at Ludhiana.
v. Ram Prakash and Ors.,
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 therefore personal to him.
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.
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 analysed.
The respondent No.
The point at issue relates to the validity of the arrears of rent deposited by the tenant under the proviso.
The rent agreed was Rs.
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.
With these findings the Controller accepted the eviction petition and directed the tenants eviction from the premises.
After companysidering the evidence produced by the parties he recorded a finding that there was sub letting by the tenant and companysequently ordered eviction.
The tender must be deemed to be by the tenant and his associates should be ignored.
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.
The High Court accordingly affirmed the order of eviction.
Onkar Mal is also a case of eviction based on arrears of rent as one of the grounds.
240 as interest and Rs.
The landlord did number accept the amount but made the following endorsement I do number accept the tender as it is neither legal number valid.
They denied that Saligram was inducted as subtenant.
25 as companyts as assessed on behalf of all the respondents, total amounting to Rs.
45 per month.
The tenant alongwith Saligram by obtaining leave have preferred this appeal.
They are appellants 1 and 2 in this appeal.
After companysidering 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.
v. Onkar Mai, 1977 RLR 1 195.
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 order of the appellate authority has been companyfirmed by the High Court by dismissing the tenants revision in limine.
2025 as arrears of rent from 1.12.1975 to 31.8.1979, Rs.
