R.P Khosla, J.:— The sole question that arises for decision in this petition for revision is whether payment by the tenant to one of the heirs of the original landlord after his demise is a good discharge.
2. The present petitioner, Sukhdev Dass, on 16th of November, 1859 tenanted the house in question from Puran Chand on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/8/-. The petitioner tenant continued making payments to his said landlord. Some years later Puran Chand died. The payment of the rent began being made to Chaman Lal, respondent No. 3, the eldest of the sons who became heirs along with others (daughters) after the demise of Puran Chand. Chaman Lal, Smt. Raj Kumari, Smt. Nirmala Kumari, Smt. Bimla Devi and Smt. Prabha Kumari were born of the first wife of Puran Chand. Sudesh Kumar, Murari Lal and Lalit Mohan were offsprings from the second wife.
3. Chaman Lal who is aged 60 was the eldest of the offsprings of Puran Chand. Admittedly after the death of Puran Chand, the original landlord, Sudesh Kumar began realising rents from part of the tenanted premises of the estate and likewise Chaman Lal started getting the rent from tenants, including that from the present petitioner from the other part. Admittedly, there had been no partition.
4. Sudesh Kumar and his brothers maintained the eviction petition before the Rent Controller for ejectment of Sukhdev Dass petitioner from the house tenanted to him by Puran Chand. The sole ground for ejectment was non payment of the rent. The Rent Controller on the footing that payment to Chaman Lal one of the heirs was a good payment dismissed the petition. The Appellate Authority, however, reversed that finding and concluded that payment of rent to one of the landlords does not operate as a complete discharge and, therefore, the tenant was liable to be ejected. It is the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 22nd November, 1965 that has been impugned by the tenant in the instant revision petition.
5. Chaman Lal was empanelled in the proceedings before the Rent Controller as respondent No. 3 and had owned up having been paid by the tenant all rents pertaining to the tenanted property after the demise of Puran Chand and in that respect he fully supported the tenant. Sudesh Kumar as A.W 1, admitted that after the demise of Puran Chand there had been no partition of his estate among his heirs and that Sudesh Kumar and the progeny from the second wife are in possession of the part of the property realising rents and that of the other part Chaman Lal respondent No. 3 was receiving rents without any demur. Obviously each branch of the descendants was impliedly acting on behalf of the other branch. It is also clear that at no stage the tenant present petitioner had been notified that Chaman Lal was not authorised to receive the rents of the tenanted house. In the premises, therefore, payment of rents to Chaman Lal was good payment and between Chaman Lal and Sudesh Kumar and others it was purely a question of accounting. Findings in Hiralal Neks v. Agarchand Gorelal . A.I.R 1957 M.P 5. support the view enunciated. The tenant cannot in the set up suffer. He obviously stood discharged of the liability. The learned I counsel for the respondent citing a mortgage case contended that on the analogy that payment to one of the co-mortgagors did not discharge the liability, the payment to colandlords was not payment to the entire body of landlords and did not absolve the tenant of the legal obligation. Incidents of a mortgage are wholly different and considerations to mortgage have no relevance to relationship of a landlord and tenant.
6. The finding of the learned Appellate Authority thus that the petitioner was liable to ejectment is not sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside and the judgment of the Rent Controller is restored.
7. In the result, this petition for revision succeeds and is allowed. The application of Sudesh Kumar for ejectment of the petitioner tenant stands dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
8. Petition allowed.