D.S. Tewatia, J.
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 Union 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, 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 Prakash (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.
4. On an appeal, the appellate authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller in regard to the validity of the tender while maintaining the other findings thereof.
5. In our opinion, neither the ratio of Ram Gopal's case (1963-65 Pun LR 1112) (supra) nor of Kirpal Ram and Sons case (1979-81 Pun LR 168) (supra) is attracted to the facts of the present case. In Ram Gopal's case, the tender was made on behalf of the tenant and the strangers. The landlord refused to accept the tender. The amount was, however, deposited in Court. The Rent Controller eventually found that there had been no subletting since the tenant was himself liable for the payment of the rent. So the rend had to be paid by him alone. The tender, however, having not been made on his behalf alone, it was held that there was no valid tender.
6. In Kirpa Ram's case (supra), the tenant had tendered the arrears of rent describing himself as the Karta of the named firm which he designated as H. U. F. firm. The Court found that it was not an H. U. f. firm, but a personal firm of the alleged Karta. An objection was taken to the validity of the tender on behalf of the landlord on the ground that the tender had been made by the tenant as Karta of an H. U. F. firm and since the firm in question was his private firm and it was found as a fact that the premises were leased out to the said private firm, so the tender could not be treated as a tender from the said private firm. The contention was repelled by the Court and it was held that the given person represented in him as his own self and also the private firm of which he was the proprietor, and since the deposit was made by him, although he wrongly described the firm as belonging to H. U. F. the tender, therefore, would be a valid tender.
7. There appears no conflict of view expressed in these two decisions.
8. In the present case, tender was made by the common counsel of the two respondents on behalf of both the respondents, but the landlord accepted the money with the rider that he was accepting the money only on behalf of respondent No. 1.
9. The landlord having accepted the tender on behalf of the tenant, respondent No. 1, and eventually the Court having found that there had no subletting by respondent No. 1, and eventually the Court having found that there had no subletting by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2, it does not lie in the mouth of the landlord to say that there had not been any valid tender. The position would have been different if he had not accepted the money at all, as was the case in Ram Gopal's case (1963-65 Pun LR 1112) (supra).
10. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same but with no order as to costs.
11. Revision dismissed.