JUDGMENT
N.K. Agarwal, J.
1. This is a civil revision petition by the tenant. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition filed by the landlord by his order dated May 18, 1978. The appellate authority, however, allowed the landlord’s appeal and ordered eviction on October 25, 1979.
2. An application seeking eviction of the tenants was filed by Batkau Ram under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting. The landlord claimed rent for 41 months amounting to Rs. 840/-. Mool Chand, respondent No. 1, in the eviction petition admitted the claim of the landlord but did not appear subsequently in evidence. Ram Charan, respondent No. 2, in that petition denied to be a sub-tenant and asserted that he was a direct tenant of the landlord. He also informed the court of the Rent Controller that he had paid rent to the landlord upto June, 1975. Batkau Ram had purchased the property under registered sale deed dated October 1, 1963, and had inducted respondent No. 1, Mool Chand, as tenant on July 1, 1965, on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-.
3. Following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :-
1. Whether there is a direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and respondent No. 2 ? OPR
2. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA.
3. Relief.
4. Respondent No. 2, Ram Charan, stated that he had been inducted in the premises by the landlord as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 12.50 p. about 14 years earlier. He asserted that he never paid any rent to respondent No. 1 Mool Chand. He produced birth certificates (Ex.R1 to R-5) of his children to show that he was living in the demised premises for the last 14 years. He remitted the amount of rent to the landlord by money orders, but the latter refused to accept it. Batkau Ram stated in his evidence that respondent No. 2. Ram Charan was a sub-tenant of respondent No. 1, Mool Chand, who was his (Batkau Ram’s) real nephew. The learned Rent Controller accepted the plea of respondent No. 2, Ram Charan and dismissed the eviction petition. The Appellate Authority, however, held that respondent No. 2 was a direct tenant of the landlord and he rejected the ground of sub-letting. However, the Appellate Authority took the view that respondent No. 2, Ram Charan, by not tendering the arrears of rent, rendered himself liable to eviction. The plea of respondent No. 2 was that since rent was not demanded from him, he was not required to pay any rent to the landlord. However, he tendered the rent as due from July 1, 1975, on the first date of hearing. No rent prior to July 1, 1975 was tendered by Ram Charan on the ground that the rent had already been paid. Two money order receipts, Exhibits R6 and R7, were produced by him to show the remittance of rent amounting to Rs. 25/- for the months of July and August, 1975 and rent amounting to Rs. 37.50 for other three months. Rent for the period prior to July, 1975 was, thus, not paid. The Appellate Authority, therefore, ordered eviction of respondent No. 2 on the ground of non-payment of rent.
5. The present revision petition filed by the tenant came up earlier for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who ordered on September 24, 1987, that this matter may be listed for hearing before a Division Bench alongwith another Civil Revision Petition No. 2470 of 1979. The Division Bench by order dated May 26, 1988, referred the matter for consideration by a Full Bench. The question of law referred to the Full Bench was whether a landlord can claim rent from the tenant-inchief only or from the tenant as well and in case he does not claim rent from the tenant, whether he is liable to pay rent to the landlord.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the question of law referred to the Full Bench stands decided and has been reported as P.C. Verman (retd.) Lt. Col. Dr. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors., (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 857 (F.B.). The Full Bench of this Court has held in paragraphs 54 and 55 as under :-
“54. In the case in hand, it has been made clear above that the landlords never acknowledged the petitioner as their tenant at any point of time and that is why they did not demand the rent from the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, could not be ordered to be ejected for non-payment of arrears of rent when he claimed himself to be direct tenant under the landlords and even when the landlords have not sought his ejectment on that ground.
55. As has been discussed above, in the case in hand, the sub-tenant (petitioner) has been condemned un-heard and the order of ejectment passed by the Controller without giving an opportunity of being heard on the question of non-payment of rent by the Controller has caused grave injustice to him and he has been deprived of the valuable rights accrued to him under the Act”.
7. From the facts as discussed earlier, it is found that the plea taken by respondent No. 2, Ram Charan, before the learned Rent Controller was that he took the house on rent from landlord. Batkau Ram, in January 1964 and that he was not a sub-tenant of respondent No. 1, Mool Chand. Ram Charan claimed himself to be a direct tenant of Batkau Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 12.50. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, referred supra, respondent No. 2 was not required to tender the arrears of rent demanded by the landlord in the eviction proceedings. It is also found that the Rent Controller in the absence of any demand of arrears of rent by the landlord from respondent No. 2, did not proceed to determine the amount of interest and costs. Since, the landlord failed to claim and demand the arrears of rent from respondent No. 2 in his eviction petition, it was not necessary for respondent No. 2 to tender the arrears of rent to the landlord. He was not bound to tender the amount of rent unless it was demanded by the landlord from him before the Rent Controller. Respondent No. 2 Ram Charan, tendered arrears of rent in part for the period from July 1, 1975 to October 31, 1975 on the first date of hearing but it was not accepted by the landlord. It further does go to show that the respondent did not raise any demand nor accepted the tender from respondent No. 2. Therefore, the decision of the Full Bench is found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. The revision petition is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority dated October 25, 1979, ordering eviction of petitioner, Ram Charan, from the premises in dispute is quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs.