A landlord cannot make out a new case for ejectment in appeal which was not set up in the original application, especially when the landlord's pleas are found to be false.

1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos.909 and 910 of 1980, as the facts are identical in both of them and the landlord is also the same.

2. Tilak Raj Girdhar, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenants Mehar Chand and his son Dalip Kumar in rent application No.2-1 of Sept. 17, 1977 and that of his other tenant, Dewan Chand in rent application No. 51-R of 1977, on the ground of non-payment of rent. Against Mehar Chand and his son Dalip Kumar, it was alleged that the shop, in dispute, was on rent with them at a monthly rent of Rs. 130/-, they were liable to pay the same on the first of each month and that they had not paid the rent from Oct. 1, 1968, till the date of the application which was instituted on Sept. 17, 1977, and as such, they were liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The tenants-petitioners admitted the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, but pleaded inter alia that the rate of rent was Rs. 60/-, and not Rs. 130/- per month, as alleged by the landlord and that they had paid the rent up to July 31, 1977. However, the rent from Aug. 1, 1977 to Dec. 31, 1977, amounting to Rs. 300/- at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 60/- per month together with Rs. 10/- as interest and Rs. 30/- as costs were tendered on Jan. 12, 1978, the first date of hearing. However, the amount so tendered was refused by the landlord. It was further pleaded that the landlord never issued any receipt after receiving the rent and he had also filed an application for ejectment earlier through one Lal Singh who claimed himself to be mortgagee under the landlord, which was dismissed on Aug. 18, 1975 and that order of dismissal was upheld in appeal on Apr. 3, 1976 by the Appellate Authority. In the application against Dewan Chand, tenant, the rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month from Oct. 1, 1965, that is, from the same date as in the case of Mehar Chand and his son Dalip Kumar. In reply to this application, the same plea was taken by the tenant, viz., the rate of rent was Rs. 60/- and not Rs. 120/- per month and the rent had been paid up to July 31, 1977 whereas the rent from Aug. 1, 1977 to Dec. 31, 1977, amounts to Rs. 300/- at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month, Rs. 10/- as interest and Rs. 30/- as costs, in all Rs. 340/-, were tendered on Jan. 12, 1978, the first date of hearing but refused by the landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues in both the cases :

1. What is the rate of rent of the premises, in dispute?

2. Whether the respondent has made a valid tender? If not, its effect?

3. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged in the application?

In both the cases, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No.1 in favour of the tenants and came to the conclusion that the monthly rent was Rs. 60/- and not the one as claimed by the landlord. He further found that the rent had also been paid up to July 31,1977, and the tender made from Aug. 1, 1977 to Dec. 31, 1977, was a valid tender. As a result of these findings, the applications for ejectment of the tenants were dismissed. In appeal, the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.1, that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month and not as claimed by the landlord, were upheld, but on the other issues which were discussed together, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenants were in arrears of rent at least from Aug. 18, 1975 and the tender made on the first date of hearing from Aug. 1, 1977 to Dec. 31, 1977, was not a valid one. Consequently, the orders of the Rent Controller, dismissing the ejectment applications, were set aside, and the ejectment applications were allowed and the tenants were ordered to vacate the premises within one month. Aggrieved against the same, the tenants have come up in revision to this Court.

3 The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Appellate Authority has absolutely made out a new case for the la