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.

R.N.Mittal, J.

1. This revision petition has been 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 a rent of Rs. 45/- per mensem with effect from January, 1958, vide rent note dated January 1, 1958 Banwari Lal and Gulab Chand. without the consent of the applicant, had sub let 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. 1,950/-. The landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the alleged tenants and sub-tenants 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 Balkar Singh appeared in the Court and contested the application for ejectment. In their written statement they stated that they had entered into a partnership 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. 19.50/ - on account of arrears of Rent together with Rs. 125/- as interest and Rs. 25/- as costs to the landlord on April 20, 1970, 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 sub-letting 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 Nath 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.

3. 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)(l) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act provides that if the tenant on the first date of hearing of the application for 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(l). 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 for shops has been framed out of leased by a municipal town or notified area committee. 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 c