ORDER : T.C. SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. The suit out of which this petition for revision arises was filed by non-applicant No. 1 Sohanlal as landlord for ejectment and arrears of rent against non-applicant No.2 Gangadas as a tenant, and the applicant Daryanumal as defendant No. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Sohanlal filed an application under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act requesting the Court to order the defendants to de posit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/-per month. On 28-9-59 the Court accordingly ordered the defendant to deposit Rs. 25/- per month and the present revision petition is directed against that order. 2. Earlier, on 7-7-1958 the Court had passed a similar order and on failure of the defendants to deposit the amount, their defence was ordered to be struck off on 17-10-1958. The defendants applied for a review of the order and this application was allowed on 7-1-1959 and the order to make the deposit was set aside. 3. So far as the tenant Gangadas (non-applicant No. 2) is concerned, he has not come up in revision against the order of the Court directing him to make the deposit of arrears of rent. The matter, therefore, stands concluded against him. 4. The first contention on behalf of the applicant is that the order of the trial court, dated 7-1-1959, by which the earlier order requiring the deposit to be made was set aside, operates as res judicata and the Court had therefore no power to make a second order on 28-9-59 directing the deposit to be made. It will be noticed that when the order, dated 7-7-58 was passed, the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act was in force and in Section 5 (1) (a) the words "rent deed" occurred which had been interpreted to mean that the power could be exercised when the agreement was in writing. It was on this ground that the trial court set aside its former order, as no document in writing about the agreement to pay rent existed in the present case. The words "rent deed" were substituted by the word '"agreement" by extension of Laws Act, 1958. It was after the amendment that a fresh application was made by the landlord under Section 5. The words "rent deed" were substituted by the word '"agreement" by extension of Laws Act, 1958. It was after the amendment that a fresh application was made by the landlord under Section 5. This was allowed, as the Court had by then been given power to order deposit of rent in cases where the agreement was not in writing I do not find that the second order of the Court which was passed on the basis of new law could be held to be barred by the rule of res judicata. 5. The second point which has been raised by the applicant is that as a sub-tenant he was not bound to pay any rent to the plaintiff (landlord) and the Court could not, therefore, ask him to make any deposit. Shri Garg on behalf of the non-applicant plaintiff contends that according to the definition given in Section 3 (f), "tenant" includes ''any person occupying the accommodation as a sub tenant" and therefore the same meaning should be attached to the word "tenant" occurring in Section 5. 6. The definition given in Section 3 apply unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context; Section 5 of the Act is intended to prevent dilatory tacties of a tenant in resisting a suit on frivolous grounds for escaping the liability to pay arrears of rent. The liability to pay rent to the landlord is only of the tenant and there is no privity of contract or estate between the landlord and the sub-tenant. The contract of the sub-tenancy subsists as long as the tenure of the tenant lasts. As the sub-tenant is not under a legal obligation to pay any rent to the original landlord and it is only the tenant who is so liable, the word "tenant" used in Section 5 of the Act must be read in a restricted sense so as to refer only to the original tenant. 7. It has been held in Govindrao Vs. Sarjabai (A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 62) that even a sub-tenancy created with the consent of the landlord comes to an end after the tenancy is lawfully put to an end by him. Interpreting the word "tenant" similarly used in Section 4 (a) of the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan, Newaskar J. in Dayashankar Vs. Janaksingh & another (Civil Misc. Sarjabai (A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 62) that even a sub-tenancy created with the consent of the landlord comes to an end after the tenancy is lawfully put to an end by him. Interpreting the word "tenant" similarly used in Section 4 (a) of the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan, Newaskar J. in Dayashankar Vs. Janaksingh & another (Civil Misc. Second Appeal No. 117 of 1957, decided on 14-10-1959) rejected the contention that that word should be interpreted in the light of the definition of "tenant" therein and held that as the contract to pay rent by the tenant was personal, the word "tenant" used in that clause only referred to the tenant proper and not to the sub-tenant. It was also held that the landlord had no right to demand any rent from the sub-tenant and therefore the landlord was not required to serve a notice for payment of rent on him. On the same reasoning, the landlord cannot compel the sub-tenant to deposit arrears of rent under Section 5 of the Act. I hold that the sub-tenant was not therefore liable to deposit any rent. 8. The petition for revision is allowed and the order of the trial Court, so far as it relates to the deposit of rent by the sub-tenant (applicant), is set aside. However, as I find from the record that a willingness to deposit the rent on behalf of the sub-tenant (applicant) also was expressed before the lower Court and the plea that he was not able to deposit rent as a sub-tenant was not taken at any stage, I direct that the costs of this revision shall be borne as incurred.