Deposit of rent in Court under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act is not payment or tender of rent to the landlord.

1. Dewan Dilbagh Rai respondent is the landlord while Mehnga Singh petitioner is his tenant in a shop situate Saddar Bazar, Gurdaspur. On March 31, 1967, the landlord filed an application under Sec.13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, III of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay rent from August 1, 1966, to February 28, 1967, and had sublet the shop to respondents 2 to 5, without his consent. The tenant and other respondents to the petitioner resisted the said petition on the ground that the arrears of rent for the period of seven months claimed by the landlord in his petition for ejectment had already been deposited in the Court under Sec.31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act and that no rent was due to the landlord at the time the application for ejectment was made. The allegation of subletting was also denied and it was contended that respondents 2 and 3 and brothers of the tenant, Mehnga Singh, and they have been working with him since the shop was taken on lease by respondent 1. With regard to respondents 4 and 5 it was pleaded that they were the employees of respondents 1 to 3 and were not doing any independent business in the shop in dispute. It was also alleged that the plea of subletting was barred by respondent judicata. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues. :-

1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected on the grounds alleged in the petition?

2 Whether the plea of subletting is barred by respondent judcata?

3. Relief. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant had deposited the sum of Rs.96.25 on November 4, 1966, and Rs.240.60 on March 15, 1967, for payment to the landlord and in this manner it was proved that the rent claimed by the landlord in his application for ejectment had been paid by the tenant and, therefore, the ground on non-payment of arrears of rent was not available to the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant. The ground of subletting was also found against the landlord and as a result of his findings, the application for ejectment was dismissed on February 15, 1968.2. The landlord filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, on April 17, 1969, on the ground that the deposit of rent in the Court under Sec.31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act did not amount to either tender or payment of arrears of rent to the landlord and, therefore, the tenant was liable to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. For coming to this conclusion, the learned Appellate Authority relief on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vidya Prachar Trust V/s. Basant Ram, 1969-71 Pun LR 526 = (AIR 1969 SC 1273) which was till then not reported. Their Lordships reversed te judgment of a Division Bench of this Court on the point. Feeling aggrieved from that order, Mehnga Singh and his two brothers filed the present revision petition in this Court under Sec.15 (5) of the Act which came up for hearing before my learned brother Mahajan, J. , on September 25, 1970. It was argued before the learned Judge that the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Appellate Authority did not apply to the facts of this case because the tenant had deposited the rent due from him not under Sec.31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act but in the Court of the Rent Controller who is the appropriate authority trying the applications for ejectment under Sec.13 of the Act. Considering that this was an important point of law of frequent occurrence, the learned Judge referred the case to a larger Bench and that his how this petition has come up before us for decision.3. The facts stated above are not in dispute and the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed copies of the receipts in proof of the two deposits made by Mehnga Singh tenant in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge exerc