Sundara Aiyar, J.
1. The question raised in this case is of some importance. As I have arrived at a clear opinion on that question, I think it is useless to admit this revision petition. The plaintiff instituted this suit to recover rent due on a lease. The 6th defendant was a sub-lessee; it does not appear whether he took a sub-lease of the whole or a portion of the premises leased by the plaintiff. The finding of the lower Court is that the 6th defendant paid the rent due by him to the 1st defendant, his lessor, and surrendered the land to him. The lower Court, therefore, concludes that no rent was due by the 6th defendant. Mr. Madhavan Nair contends that a sub-lessee is liable for rent to the lessor of the head lease, the obligation to pay rent being a covenant attaching to the land, and he relies on the authority of Kunhanujan v. Anjeln 17 M.k 296. Assuming that that is the law with regard to sub-leases, irrespective of the question whether the sub-lease amounts practically to an assignment of the lease or not, the question raised in this case was not decided there. The point for decision here is whether a sub-lessee who has paid rent to his lessor is not discharged by the payment. There is no allegation in the plaint that the sub-lessee was warned by notice on the part of the plaintiff not to pay rent to his lessor. It appears quite clear to me that a sub-lessee is bound to pay his lessor the rent that he undertakes by his lease to pay, and that, if he has only carried out his obligation, he cannot afterwards be liable to his lessor's lessor. As already stated, the lessor did not take any steps to make the sub-lessee directly liable to him, and there is no question of collusion between the lessee and the sub-lessee. I must, therefore, hold that the view taken by the lower Court is right and reject this petition.