M.S.LIBERHAN,J - (1.) THE ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of sub-letting by Kewal Krishan to Rakesh Kumar as well as for arrears of rent from 1.4.1980 to 25.2.1981. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found that there was no sub-letting and the lease deed alleged to be a lease in favour of Kewal Krishan is a forged document and has been made to overcome to rigors of rent law. It was found that there was no sub-letting and Rakesh Kumar Verma was in fact the direct tenant of the landlady.
(2.) THE authorities below found that arrears of rent were not tendered on the first date of hearing in accordance with law. Though it was tendered on 12.5.1983, it was not accepted by the landlady. It was further contended that the first date of hearing for tendering the arrears of rent was 4.5.1983 when the ex-parte proceedings were set aside. Be that as it may, it is not the controversy here nor the point is being pressed in this case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Sukhdev Raj v. Rukmani Devi and Others, 1988(1) RCR 430 : 1988(1) Punjab Law Reporter 679, a Division Bench judgment of this Court, in order to contend that since the ejectment was sought against the tenant on the averments that he was as sub-tenant, he was not bound to tender the rent. Reliance has been placed on the following observations of the Division Bench :- "that the question which needs determination in the present case, therefore, is as to whether the sub-tenant can be ordered to be ejected for non-payment of arrears of rent when he claims himself to be direct tenant under the landlord even when the landlord has not sought his ejectment on that ground. If the question involved was as to whether a landlord can be given a decree for the arrears of rent in such a situation there would be no difficulty in granting the relief because it could cause no prejudice to the opposite party, he having admitted the liability to pay the rent. The question of his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent, however, stands on a different footing. As the landlord never accepted the alleged sub-tenant as his tenant nor sought his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent, his ejectment, if ordered on the ground of non-payment of rent, would certainly prejudice the rights of the sub-tenant who never got a chance to avail the opportunity granted under the statute to tender the rent on appearance in the court. "the rule appears to be well established that the plaintiff cannot be given any relief contrary to his case on the admission of the defendant if it is going to cause prejudice and injustice to the latter." It was further held "that no other principle of law has been quoted by the learned Judge in Buta Singh's case, (1984) 86 P.L.R. 559 for holding that a person who is alleged to be sub-tenant, would be liable to ejectment if the arrears of rent are not tendered by him when he claims himself to be a direct tenant under the landlord. So the rule laid down in Buta Singh's case (supra) cannot be accepted and the decision in that case is accordingly overruled." I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and find no reason to differ with the same. The facts and circumstances of this case as stated above are squarely covered by the facts as well as the law laid down in the aforesaid case. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent to take contrary view.
(3.) IN view of my above observations, the impugned order is set aside, revision petition is accepted and the application for ejectment is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision allowed.;