R.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has teen filed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepore dated February 14, 1974.
(2.) BRIEFLY the case of Onkar Mal, landlord, was that he had let out the shop in dispute to Gulab Chand and Banwari Lal at rent of Rs. 45/ - per mensem wish effect from January, 1958, vide rent note dated January 1,1958. Banwari Lal and Gulab Chand, without the consent of" the applicant, had sublet the shop to the Punjab Rajasthan Goods Carrier, Respondent No. 3, through Sohan Lal, Jagan Nath and Balkar Singh, proprietors and gave its possession to them. It is further alleged that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were in arrears of rent from March 1, 1967 to August 31, 1969, amounting to Rs, 1350/ -. The landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the alleged tenants and subtenants, inter alia, on the aforesaid grounds. Gulab Chand and Banwari Lal did not attend the Court in spite of service and were proceeded against ex -parte. Sohan Lal Jagan Nath and alkar Singh appeared in the Court and contested the application for ejectment. In their written statement they stated that they had entered into a parnership with Gulab Chand for carrying on their business under the name and style of 'Punjab Rajasthan Goods Carrier in the shop in dispute. They also tendered an amount of Rs. 1350/ - on account of arrears of rent together with Rs. 115/ - as interest and Rs. 75/ - as costs to the landlord on April 20, 19 0, the first date of hearing. He, however, did not accept the rent on the ground that the aforesaid contesting Respondents were not his tenants and they had no authority to tender the rent on behalf of Banwari Lal and Gulab Chand. The Rent Controller held that there was no partnership between Gulab Chand, Sohan Lal Jagan Nath and Balkar Singh and that subletting had been proved by Gulab Chand in favour of the three partners in the Punjab Rajasthan Goods. Carrier. It further held that the tender made by them in favour of the landlord was not a proper one. Consequently, he ordered the ejectment of Gulab Chand, and others. Gulab Chand. the Punjab Rajasthan Goods Carrier, Jagan Math and Balkar Singh went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who held that a proper tender was not made by the Appellants He, however, did not give any finding on other matters. Consequently he dismissed the appeal. The aforesaid persons have come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, to this Court. The matter for determination in this case is as to whether the tender of rent made by Sohan Lal Jagan Nath and Balkar Singh was a valid tender. In order to determine the aforesaid matter first question that arises for decision is as to who can tender the rent. Proviso to Section 13(2)(1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act provides that if the tenant on the first date of hearing of the application tor ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at 6 per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within time. The word 'tenant' has been defined in Section 2(1). It says that 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, unless with the consent in writing of the landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, cart -stand, or slaughter house or of rents tor shops has beer, framed out of leased by a municipal, town or notified area committees . From the reading of the section it is apparent that the person who falls within the definition of tenant' can pay the rent and not a third party. Even a sub -tenant, who is in possession of the property without the consent of the landlord, is not a tenant and, therefore, not entitled to tender the rent. (See Banu Mal and Anr. v. Krishan Gopal,, (1950)52 PLR 3 S.N Gyan Chand v. Messr Lahore Chemicals,, (1952)54 PLR 6 S.N and Shrimati Naurati v. Hans Raj,, 1957 CR 199 of (Civil Revision No. 199 of 1957), decided on March 10, 1958. A sub -tenant, who is occupying the premises with the written consent of the landlord, however, stands on a different footing. He is, for all intents and purposes, a tenant under the Act and is entitled to tender the rent. In this view I get support from the observations in Ram Nath v. Girdhari Lal, etc., (1959)61 PLR 77.
(3.) THE next question that arises for determination is as to whether the Petitioners Sohan Lal, Jagan Nath and Balkar Singh fall within the definition of the word 'tenant. It is the admitted case of the parties that the shop in dispute was given on lease by Onkar Mal to Gulab Chand Banwart Lal. It is alleged by the revision Petitioners that later on Banwari Lal gave up his rights in favour of Gulab Chand and he entered into partnership with Sohan Lal, Jagan Nath and Balkar Singh, vide partnership deed Exhibit R, 1. The landlord, however, does not admit this partnership. It is not controverted by Mr. Sarin, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that Gulab Chand and Banwari Lal were proceeded against ex parte on the first date of hearing and that the rent was tendered by Jagan Nath, Balkar Singh and Sohan Lal. He, however, vehemently contends that the tender was proper, as Jagan Nath etc. had entered into partnership with Gulab Chand. Even if it may be assumed that there was a valid partnership between Gulab Chand and Jagan Nath etc., the contention of the Learned Counsel has no substance, I have already observed above, that it is the tenant who has a right to tender the rent. A third person by entering into partnership with a tenant, does not become a tenant in the tenanted premises. The original tenant after the agreement of partnership shall be deemed to be in possession of such premises. No rights in tenancy vest in the persons, who are taken as partner by the tenant. The matter is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Murli Dhar v. Chuni Lal, 1970 RCJ 922. It was held in that case that a firm name was only a compendious way of describing the partners of the firm and, therefore, occupation by a firm is only occupation by its partners. It was further held that where the old and new firms had a common partner, the occupation would be by one of the original tenants, and the common partner would be considered to be in possession all through in his individual capacity. I also get support in the above view from Ram Nath v. Firm Badri Dass Radhelal,, AIR 1951 P&H 435 Smt. Shanti Devi v. Puran Chand, 1975 RCJ 651 and Ram Gopal and Ors. v. Om Parkash, (1963)65 PLR 1112 In Ram Gopal's case (supra) the tenant to whom the premises had been let out had entered into partnership with some strangers. The rent was tendered by the tenant along with the other persons. Mahajan J. (as he then was) even in those circumstances, held that there was no valid tender of the arrears of rent at the first hearing.;