JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-9-1971 of the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City who refused to strike out the defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 by holding that they were not the tenants of the plaintiff-petitioner. 2. The plaintiff petitioner brought a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the non-petitioners amongst others on the ground that they had committed defaults in making payment of rent for more than six months and further that defendant-non-petitioner No. 4 Ratanlal had sublet the suit property to defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 without his consent. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The defendant-non-petitioner No. 4 Ratanlal denied that fact of subletting the suit premises and further denied that he was a defaulter in making payment of rent. The defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 denied that they were the sub-tenants and pleaded that they were inducted by the plaintiff-petitioner as tenant and are his tenants. They further denied that they had committed default in payment of rent. 3. On 14th of April, 1967, the defendant-non-petitioner No. 4 Ratanlal moved an application before the trial Court under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1950 hereinafter called the Act. The trial Court determined the rent on 4-8-1967 and directed the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent and further made order that the defendants shall deposit the monthly rent by 15th of every month. It appears that the rent was not deposited by any of the defendants and therefore on 23rd of December, 1967, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Section 13(6) of the Act alleging that the defendants had not complied with the order of the Court and prayed that their defence be struck off. The learned trial Judge accepted the application and struck off the defence of all the defendants under Section 13(6) of the Act. 4. The defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 felt aggrieved by the above order and went in appeal which came to be heard by the Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur City. The learned Additional District Judge held that sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act could only be applied against the defendant if it is proved that the person in whose favour the decree is to be passed, in fact, is the landlord. The learned Additional District Judge held that sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act could only be applied against the defendant if it is proved that the person in whose favour the decree is to be passed, in fact, is the landlord. The learned Judge proceeded to observe that the plaintiff had never pleaded in the plaint that the defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were his tenants. Nor it had been alleged that they had committed default in the matter of payment of rent as the allegation of the commission of the default was against the non-petitioner No. 4 Ratanlal only. It had been further observed by the learned Judge that it was non-petitioner No. 4 Ratanlal who had moved the Court for the determination of the rent and not the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. It was, therefore, observed by the learned Judge that unless the relationship of landlord and tenant is established the defence of the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 could not be struck off under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act. Consequently the learned Judge accepted the appeal and modified the decree of the lower Court and directed that the order of the learned Civil Judge under appeal shall be inoperative and ineffective so far as it related to the striking off the defence of the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. He further observed that the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 would be entitled to prove their case and rebut the evidence of the plaintiff which he may choose to lead. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge the petitioner has come up in revision. While this revision petition was pending an Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 was promulgated which inserted new Section 13A. Section 13A provides that no Court shall in any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the amending Ordinance pass any decree in favour of the landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent if the tenant applies within 30 days from the date of the commencement of the amending Ordinance notwithstanding any order to the contrary to determine the amount of rent in arrears upto the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent per annum and costs of the suit allowable to the landlord and upon the determination of the Court the tenant pays to the landlord or deposit in Court within the time prescribed by the Court such aggregate of the amount of rent in arrears, interest thereon etc. The non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 taking advantage of this provision moved an application under Section 13A of the Act during the pendency of the revision for determination of the arrears of rent and interest thereon so that they may pay/deposit the rent as required by Section 13A of the Act. This application is being opposed by Mr. Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is contended by Mr. Kasliwal that the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, committed irregularity in not striking off the defence of the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 when the rent determined on the application of the tenant-in-chief, namely, Ratanlal the non-petitioner No. 4 was not paid and had further made default in payment of monthly rent. 7. The non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded that they were the tenants and had made an application under newly inserted Section 13A of the Act and therefore the ground of default cannot be pressed into service against them for asking for striking off their defence. It has been argued by Mr. Bhandari that in the first place the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 claim themselves to be the tenants-in-chief and not the sub-tenants and, therefore, they could purge the default if any by moving the timely application under Section 13A of the Act and after complying with its provisions. Secondly, it has been contended by Mr. Bhandari that even if the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are taken to be sub-tenants they are entitled to take the benefit of Section 13A of the Act in view of the old definition of the tenant which included in itself the sub-tenant also. 8. On the other hand, it has been strenuously urged by Mr. Kasliwal that the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are sub-tenants inducted without the consent of the petitioner and have no right to press into service newly inserted Section 13A. His submission in this behalf is two-fold. First, the tenant who can apply for determination of the rent under Section 13A is only the tenant-in-chief and not the sub-tenant inducted by tenant-in-chief. 1 to 3 are sub-tenants inducted without the consent of the petitioner and have no right to press into service newly inserted Section 13A. His submission in this behalf is two-fold. First, the tenant who can apply for determination of the rent under Section 13A is only the tenant-in-chief and not the sub-tenant inducted by tenant-in-chief. He contends that in case of a sub-tenant, his landlord would be the tenant-in-chief and not the original landlord and so sub-tenant cannot claim benefit of Section 13A against him. Secondly, Section 13A gives right to the tenant against their landlord only and, therefore, the sub-tenant cannot have any right against the original landlord who is not the landlord of the sub-tenants but of the tenant-in-chief only. In this connection he relies upon Kailash Chandra v. Gomandram, 1961 R.L.W. 395. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forth on behalf of either party. It is true that the definition of the tenant as existed prior to the promulgation of the amending Ordinance of 1975 included within its fold a sub-tenant also but matter does not stop at that. The question which requires to be determined is whether a sub-tenant can claim himself to be the tenant of the original landlord. It cannot be lost sight of that the tenant-in-chief has the direct relationship with the landlord and has privity with him. Admittedly the sub-tenant has no privity of contract between himself and the landlord. The point therefore arises for consideration is whether a sub-tenant could take the benefit of Section 13A in the light of the old definition of a tenant. Now Section 13A has been inserted by the amending Ordinance which has also inserted the new definition of tenant which excludes the terms sub-tenant from its fold. The question, therefore, depends upon the nature of the answer as to whether the terms tenant used in Section 13A will also include the sub-tenant. Further the impact of the import of authority Kailash Chandra v. Gomandram (supra), will also have to be borne in mind. Learned counsel for the parties, however, party that these points need not be decided at this stage as they agree that if the non-petitioner Nos. Further the impact of the import of authority Kailash Chandra v. Gomandram (supra), will also have to be borne in mind. Learned counsel for the parties, however, party that these points need not be decided at this stage as they agree that if the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are proved to be the tenant-in-chief as they had pleaded in their written statement, there will be no difficulty in holding that they could take the benefit of Section 13A. They further submitted that if the non-petitioners are not held to be the tenants-in-chief then alone the question of invoking of Section 13A by a sub-tenant will arise and therefore this question should be left for the trial Court. Till the question as to whether the defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are tenants-in-chief or sub-tenants is determined, it would not be proper to strike out the defence of the defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 on the present materials. This point shall have to be investigated first. The appellate Court should have, therefore, sent the matter for decision of the trial Court and should not have passed the categorical order refusing to strike out the defence of the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. The case will have, therefore, to be sent to the trial Court along with the application under Section 13A submitted by the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 2 in this Court to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. 10. In the result, the revision is accepted as indicated above and the case is remanded to the trial Court for deciding it in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The costs of this revision shall abide the final result of the case.Revision accepted. *******