D. Falshaw, C.J. - (1.) THIS revision petition by tenants and second appeal by the landlord (R.S.A. No. 977 of 1963) have arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) THE premises in suit consist of a shop in the town of Muktsar which were leased in 1956 by Dr. Mehanga Ram to Hira Lal at an annual rent of Rs. 900. There seems to be no doubt that Hira Lal did not occupy the shop very long and the rent for the year from the 1st of April, 1956 to the 31st of March, 1957 was accepted by the landlord on the 11th of June, 1956, the landlord's receipt for the payment showing that it was paid to him by Hira Lal who had taken it from Charanji Lal and Panna Lal who are two of the proprietors of the firm Charanji Lal Panna Lal. On the 27th of May, 1959 the landlord instituted proceedings against Hira Lal and the partners of the firm Charanji Lal Panna Lal for ejectment on the ground of subletting and non -payment of arrears of rent. On the first date of hearing a sum sufficient to cover the arrears of rent with interest and costs was deposited by Charanji Lal etc. on behalf of the tenant. On the 19th of March, 1960 the landlord's application was dismissed as it was found that the sub -tenant had complied with the requirements of law regarding the deposit of rent, and that the subletting had been with the written consent of the landlord. On the 9th of January, 1961 the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and decreed ejectment. Charanji Lal etc. challenged this order in a revision petition which was decided by G.D. Khosla, C.J., on the 11th of July, 1961. He held that a sub -tenant who is occupying the premises with the previous permission in writing of the landlord can make a valid tender of the rent due to the landlord in Court, and he held that the written consent of the landlord to the subletting was proved. He accordingly restored the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the landlord's petition. This was shortly followed by the institution on the 18th of November, 1961 by Shrimati Bhagwanti, the widow of Dr. Mehanga Ram, who had taken his place, of a fresh petition under Section 13 of the Act against Hira Lal alone. This seems to have been wholly collusive and within three weeks, on the 8th of December, 1961, an order for ejectment was passed with the consent of Hira Lal. Two further developments took place on the same day, the 6th of February, 1962. The first of these was the institution of a petition under Section 13 of the Act by Hira Lal, the tenant, against Charanji Lal, etc. as sub -tenants for their ejectment on the ground of non -payment of rent which up to the 31st of January, 1962 amounted to Rs. 4,350. The other event was the institution by Charanji Lal etc. of a regular civil suit against Shrimati Bhagwanti and Hira Lal for a declaration that they were not liable to be ejected from the shop in suit under the consent order of the Rent Controller dated the 8th of December, 1961, which was alleged to be fraudulent and collusive and obtained without impleading Charanji Lal etc. as parties, and also an injunction was sought restraining the landlord from ejecting the plaintiffs in pursuance of that order. In that case the plaintiffs ' suit was decreed by the trial Court on the 17th of August, 1962 and the landlord's appeal was dismissed on the 21st of February, 1963.
(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge who decreed the Plaintiffs' suit also happened to be the Rent Controller at Muktsar, and in that capacity he dismissed the application of Hira Lal. He found that arrears of rent due up to the 31st of January, 1962, were Rs. 4,350 and that Rs. 4,500 had been deposited in Court by Charanji Lal, etc., and he largely relied on the judgment of the learned Chief Justice in holding that there were no arrears of rent on account of which ejectment could be ordered. He gave that decision on the 17th of August, 1962, the same day on which he decreed the suit of Charanji Lal, etc. However, on the appeal of the landlord the learned Appellate Authority on the 4th of January, 1963, reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller and granted Hira Lal an order for ejectment. Hence Charanji Lal, etc. have filed the revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority and the landlord has filed a second appeal against the decree of the Civil Court.;