D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. Doubt as to the correctness of law laid down by the Division Bench in M.P. Bansal V/s. District Employment Officer (Civil Revision No. 2262 of 1981) decided on Mar. 16, 1985, reported in AIR 1985 Punj and Har 251, entertained by a Division Bench, led to the reference to Full Bench of three Civil Revision Petitions, namely, No.1108 of 1983 at the instance of the Division Bench itself and Nos. 2202 of 1982 and 3063 of 1984 by J.V. Gupta, J. in the wake of the said earlier reference order by the Division Bench.

2. Before the examination of the relevant legal queries that arise in regard to the law laid down in Bansal s case (AIR 1985 Punj and Har 251) a brief resume of the facts of the three revision petitions would help in viewing the said legal queries in proper perspective.

3. In Civil Revision No.1108 of 1983, Shri Hari Mittal, Advocate, tenant-petitioner, had taken on rent House No. 1278, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh, on 21-11-1969, at a time when he was employed as a District Attorney on deputation with the Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, from his landlord Shri B. M. Sikka, who too at that time was a Government employee. Shri Sikka was to retire