JUDGMENT Tarkeshwar Nath, J. This application in revision by the plaintiff is directed against an order refusing his application under Section 11 A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, for a direction to opposite party no. 2 (defendant no. 2) to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent. 2. The petitioner (Plaintiff) instituted a suit against the defendants (opposite party 1 and 2) for eviction in respect of the building described in the plaint and the case of the plaintiff was that he had let out a portion of the said building to defendant no. 1 (opposite party no. 1) on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. The plaintiff subsequently came to Imow that defendant no. 1 had Sublet the suit premises to defendant no. 2 (opposite party no. 2), who was carrying on business under the name and style of 'Kiran Hotel' but the said subletting was without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff all along received rent from defendant no. 1 and issued receipts to him, but, later on, defendant no. 1 did not pay rent from August 1964 and, as such, he was a defaulter. Defendant no. 1 committed a breach of the term of the tenancy by subletting the said building to defendant no. 2 and that also gave a ground to the plaintiff for evicting them. The plaintiff served a notice on defendant no. 1 terminating the tenancy in question, but he did not vacate the house. A sum of Rs. 350/- was due as arrears of rent up to December, 1964 payable by defendant no. 1, but the plaintiff reserved his right for filing another suit for recovery of the same. 3. Defendant no. 2 filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that he was a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and the rent per month was Rs. 70/-. He further alleged that defendant no 1 was not a tenant of the house in question and he happened to be in collusion with the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff filed an application on 15. 2. 1966 under Section 11 A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'The Bihar Buildings Act, for the sake of brevity) for a direction to defendant no. 4. The plaintiff filed an application on 15. 2. 1966 under Section 11 A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'The Bihar Buildings Act, for the sake of brevity) for a direction to defendant no. 1 to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent, but that application was not pressed and, accordingly, it was rejected on 31. 8. 1966. The order of that date indicates that the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff stated that his client was not willing to recognise defendant no. 2 as a tenant of the house. At that stage, defendant no. 1 had not appeared and so the learned lawyer frankly conceded that the petition could not be heard at that stage. In any event, that petition was rejected as being not pressed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed another petition on the 12th December, 1966 under Section 11 A of the Bihar Buildings Act, for an order that defendant no. 2 should be directed to deposit the amount of damages for use and occupation of the premises in question. The learned Munsif rejected this application holding that Section 11 A of the Bihar Buildings Act did not contemplate for directing a sub-lessee to deposit the rent of the house at the instance of the landlord. Being aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has filed this application in revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsif had acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in holding that a sublessee was not a tenant in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Buildings Act. He referred to the definition of 'tenant' as given in Section 2 (f) of the said Act and submitted that a subtenant or a sub-lessee came within the purview of that definition. In other words, a sub-tenant was a tenant for all practical purposes and it was open to the plaintiff-landlord to file the application under Section 11-A for an order against the sub-tenant (defendant no. 2) to 'deposit the arrears of rent and current rent. In support of it, he referred to (1) Dr. S. M. Usman V. Muhammad Sulaiman (1953 B L.J. R 586). 2) to 'deposit the arrears of rent and current rent. In support of it, he referred to (1) Dr. S. M. Usman V. Muhammad Sulaiman (1953 B L.J. R 586). In that case, the appellant had applied before the Controller under Section 11 of the said Act for the eviction of the respondents on the ground that he required the premises for his own occupation The Controller rejected the petition of the appellant holding that the appel1ant was merely a tenant and the said Act had no application as between a tenant and under tenant. The holding in that case belonged to one Gokhul Prasad and the plaintiff himself held it as a tenant under him. The Commissioner, Patha Division, upheld the view taken by the Controller. The appellant then instituted a suit praying for the eviction of the respondents and other reliefs. But the respondents resisted the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable in the civil courts and they took other pleas as well The Munsif decreed the suit but that decree was reversed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. Hence, the plaintiff filed a second appeal in this Court. The learned Subordinate Judge had held that the sub-lessee holding under a tenant occupied in relation to each other position of landlord and tenant as defined in that Act, and this view was affirmed by this Court. Their Lordships observed & that the term 'tenant' was defined to mean any person by whom, or on whose account, rent was payable for a building and to include a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour. The further observation was that there was nothing in that definition to exclude a sub-tenant, for a sub-tenant was certainly a person by whom or on whose account rent was payable for the building. This decision, undoubtedly, supports the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that a sub-tenant came within the definition of tenant embodied in Section 2 (i) of the said Act. It is important to notice that in this decision, the question of a sub-tenant being a tenant arose between a tenant on one band and a sub-tenant on the other and not between a landlord and a sub-tenant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to (2) Suresh V. Shamal (I. L. R 36 Patna. 424). It is important to notice that in this decision, the question of a sub-tenant being a tenant arose between a tenant on one band and a sub-tenant on the other and not between a landlord and a sub-tenant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to (2) Suresh V. Shamal (I. L. R 36 Patna. 424). In that case, the respondent as landlord of a certain holding had applied for eviction of his tenant, under Section 11 (1) (a) of the Bihar Buildings Act. To that application, the admitted tenant Parmanand Jha, and, also the appellant, who was alleged to be a sub-lessee from the tenant, were made parties, and, eviction was sought against both. The tenant was opposite party no. 1 and the appellant was opposite party no. 2. The House Controller passed an order that opposite party no. 1 should put the house in question in possession of the petitioner (landlord), but he held that the petitioner could not seek any action against opposite party no. 2 under the House Control Act. The respondent thereafter executed the order of eviction which had the force of a civil court decree, on which the appellant took an objection that no order of eviction was passed against him and, as such, the execution for evicting him was barred by res judicata. In that connection, the definition of the word 'tenant' as contained in Section 2(h) of the said Act (before its amendment) was considered and it was held that the expression 'tenant' included also a sub-lessee from him and, as such, a sub-lessee was a 'tenant' within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Bihar Buildings Act and, therefore, he was a necessary party to an application for eviction by the landlord under Section 11 (1) (a) of the Act. The relevant point for consideration in the present case however is as to whether the sub-lessee-defendant no. 2 (opposite party no. 2) could be deemed to be a tenant [or the purpose of an order against him under Section 11A of the Buildings Control Act. This provision has been enacted for the benefit of the landlords, in case the tenant in occupation of a house makes default in payment of rent. In the present Case, the plaintiff-petitioner did not recognise defendant no. This provision has been enacted for the benefit of the landlords, in case the tenant in occupation of a house makes default in payment of rent. In the present Case, the plaintiff-petitioner did not recognise defendant no. 2 as his tenant and it is quite clear from Paragraph 5 of the application filed on 12. 12.1966 in the court below under Section 11A of the Bihar buildings Act. Moreover, he had alleged in that petition that defendant no 2 was liable to pay to the plaintiff (by way of) damages at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month for the use and occupation of the suit premises. 7. The position this is that on the own case of the plaintiff, defendant no. 2 is not his tenant. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff on one hand and defendant no. 2 on the other. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed that defendant no. 2 held admitted that he was a tenant of the plaintiff. That may be so, but the plaintiff is not prepared to recognise the tenancy of defendant no. 2. Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings Act provides that if a tenant commits a breach of the conditions of the tenancy or he sublets the building or any portion thereof without the consent of the landlord, it is open to the landlord to evict the tenant on any of those grounds and, in course of that eviction, the sub-lessee or sub-tenant also has to go out of the premises. But when I turn to the provisions of Section 11A of the Bihar Buildings Act, it is not possible to accept the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Legislature intended that a sub-tenant or sublessee also could be called upon to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent. Before passing an order under Section 11A of the Bihar Buildings Act, the court has to give an opportunity to both the parties for presenting their case with regard to the application under' Section 11 A. The court has then to determine as to whether there was any arrears of rent and before coming to that conclusion, it has to take into account the rate of rent per month which was last paid. If an order has to be passed against a sub-lessee under Section 11A of the Bihar Buildings Act, then a question would arise as to what was the contract or agreement between the landlord on one hand and a sub-lessee on the other, about the quantum of rent, but this question cannot be answered for the simple reason that there was, in fact, no such contract between them either at the initial stage or at any later stage. Similarly, the question as to at what rate, rent was last paid by the sub-lessee to the landlord cannot be answered inasmuch as, according to the plaintiff landlord, in the present case, he never received rent from the sub-lessee defendant no. 2. There being no contract at all between the plaintiff-landlord and the sub-lessee (defendant no. 2) it cannot be said that there was any arrears of rent, which the latter can be asked to deposit under Section 11 A of the Bihar Buildings Act. Having taken into consideration all these aspects of the provision as contained in Section 11 A of the Bihar Buildings Act, I have no hesitation in holding that a 'sub-lessee' cannot be deemed to be a 'tenant' for the purpose of passing an order against him under Section 11A of the said Act. 8. There is still another difficulty in the way of the plaintiff in the present case. In the application filed under Section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings Act, his prayer was that defendant no. 2 should be ordered to deposit a sum of Hs. 70/- per month by way of damages for the use and occupation. In other words, his claim was not for the deposit of arrears of rent and the simple reason for this was that he never treated defendant no. 2 as his tenant. 9. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the learned Munsif rightly dismissed the application of the plaintiff under Section 11A of the Bihar Buildings Act. In the result, the application is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 32/-. Application dismissed.