Tender of rent on the first date of hearing under the proviso to Section 13(1)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is a complete answer to the ground of eviction for non-payment of rent, and this benefit is available not only to the tenant but also to those who claim to be the tenant.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by Ravi Parkash and others, hereinafter described as "the petitioners" directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gidderbaha, dated 16.12.1989 and that of the learned Appellate Authority, Mukatsar, dated 4.4.1998. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, order of eviction had been passed against the petitioners. Appeal filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. Petitioners assail both the orders, namely, order of learned Rent Controller and judgment of the learned Appellate Authority.

2. The relevant facts are that Dewan Chand had filed a petition for eviction alleging that he was the owner/landlord of the shop in dispute. It had been let to Sada Lal on 24.5.1953. The said tenant was stated to have not paid the arrears of rent. Further, it was contended that earlier he was doing the work of selling vegetables in the disputed shop but since 1987 he was doing the work of Karyana goods in that shop and has changed the user without the consent of the landlord. The suit premises were stated to have been further sublet to Parik- shat Kumar petitioner without the written consent of the landlord. The last ground of eviction urged was that the petitioner had installed a Bhatti which has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises.

3. The petition for eviction had been contested. It was pointed out that the property in dispute had been taken on rent by Sada Lal being the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. It is the HUF which is running its business in the shop. It was denied that there was any change of user of the premises. The plea offered was that first of all business of wholesale selling of vegetables was conducted. After the change of vegetable market, there was little business and, therefore, Karyana goods were sold along with vegetables in the suit premises. It was denied that the property had been sublet to Parikshat Kumar (for short "the petitioner"). Parikshat Kumar was stated to be the son of Sada Lal and looking after the business because of old age of Sada Lal. He is only helping him. He denied that any Bhatti has been installed in the suit premises.

4. Learned Rent Controller framed the issues.. It was held that the tenant or the petitioner are not liable to be evicted on the ground of change of user or that any such acts have been committed which are likely to impair the value and utility of the building in dispute. However, the learned Rent Controller held that there was no valid tender of rent which was jointly tendered by Sada Lal and the petitioner and further that the property had been sublet to the petitioner by Sada Lal. It was concluded that the property in question had not been let to the Joint Hindu Family. An appeal was preferred. The Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the same. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset vehemently urged that the petitioner Parikshat Kumar and Sada Lal had filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence and that the same had not been decided. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority as such in no event can be sustained. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Jagir Kaur and Anr. v. Nirmal Singh and Anr., (1993-2)104 P.L.R. 374. Herein, an application was filed for additional evidence. The matter was adjourned for arguments. The application for additional evidence escaped the notice of the Court. In the second appeal that was filed, this Court remanded the case to the first Appellate Court for decision.

6. To the same effect is the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shadi Lal and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Rewari, (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 633 and in the case of Rajbir Singh v. Virender Singh and Ors., (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 703.