Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board And Anr. vs Sudesh Rani on 27 July, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR541
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This revision petition is against the order of Rent Controller dated 10.9.1990 whereby an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 C. P. C, filed by the petitioner for stay of the proceedings in the rent application has been declined.
2. Briefly put, the respondent-land-lady filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent on 24.10.1988 Pursuant to the notice issued by the Rent Controller, the respondent put in appearance on 26.11.1988 but did not tender the rent and the matter had to be adjourned two/three times giving opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement. The Rent Controller after filing of written statement, framed the issues, i. e., as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and what is the effect of non- payment of rent and posted this case for the evidence of the applicant for 5.3.1990.
3. That on 16 7.1990, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 C. P. C. for stay of the proceedings in the rent application on the ground that the petitioner Board has filed an interpleader suit in the court which is likely to succeed. It further averred that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Reference was also made that there is a dispute of title and till such controversy is determined, the present proceedings are liable to be stayed.
4. On receipt of notice of this application, the respondent/applicant put in appearance and filed reply. Respondent specifically took the plea that such a suit is not maintainable and thus the same is likely to be dismissed. In any case, application under Section 13 of the Act would only be allowed in case the applicant is able to prove that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. So is was prayed that this application is frivolous and the same may be dismissed.
5. The Rent Controller after perusing the pleadings of the parties and the relevant provisions of law, came to the conclusion that no case is made out for stay of the proceedings, firstly, that provisions of C. P. C. are not attracted before a Rent Tribunal and secondly, provisions of Section 10 C. P. C. apply to suits and not to an application under Section 13 of the Act.
6. The sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller has erred in law in declining to stay the eviction proceedings despite the proof on record that an interpleader suit is pending between the parties and this way had clearly violated the provisions contained in order 35 Rule 3 C. P. C. As per order 35 Rule 3 C. P. C. ; as and when any of the defendants in an interpleader suit is actually suing the plaintiff in respect of such subject-matter, the court in which such a suit is pending on receiving information about the pendency of the interpleader suit, is bound to stay the pending suit. This way, the impugned order of the Rent Controller is palpably illegal and unjust. In support of this plea, the counsel relied upon Om Parkash Kapoor v. Nirmala Devi, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 148. According to the counsel, this judgment also answers the objection taken by the Rent Controller that Section 10 C. P. C. is not applicable in proceedings before the Rent Controller.
7. Counsel for the respondent besides highlighting the reasoning given by the Rent Controller while declining the application for stay of the proceedings, relied upon judgment reported as Smt. Mohani Devi v. Gokal Chand, (1991-1) 99 P. L. R. 181., for the proposition that interpleader suit by a tenant against the landlord is not maintainable.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective counsels and perused the relevant records.
9. The Punjab State Electricity Board is a tenant in the premises in dispute which the respondent is alleged to have purchased vide registered sale-deed dated 17th September, 1986 and has in fact been receiving the rent from the petitioner before the present application. It is also the conceded position that the petitioner put in appearance before the 3Rent Controller and has filed the reply to the application therein challenging his relationship with the applicant, which is subject-matter of the adjudication before the Rent Controller. Rent Contoller has to determine as to whether there is a relationship landlord and tenant between the parties and thereafter adjudicate whether an order of eviction can be passed or declined in terms of Section 13 of the Act.
10. The Judgment in Om Parkash's case relied upon by the petitioner has no applicability on the facts of the present case. The facts in that petition were that Ora Parkash was a tenant of a shop under the Joint Hindu Family Firm M/s Janki Dass and Sons. Amar Nath, as the Karta of the family was the person to whom rent was paid by the petitioner. On the death of Amar Nath, the tenant-Om Parkash started paying rent to his widow-Lajwanti It is subsequently that Subhash Chander and Sukesh Kumar sons of Parkash Chand, brother of Amar Nath, filed a petition for ejectment against Om Parkash on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and an order of ejectment was passed against him which was affirmed in appeal also and revision against these orders were admitted by this Court. In the meanwhile, however, Lajwanti sold the shop to Nirmala Devi who, thus, during the pendency of the revision petition filed an ejectment application against Om Parkash on the ground of personal necessity and nonpayment of arrears of rent and it is these proceedings which were sought to be stayed by filing an application under Section 10 of the C. P. C.
11. The court on the facts and circumstances of the case, thus, observed that two sets of persons were seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the shop let out to him. One set, i. e., Subhash Chander and Sukesh Kumar had already got order of ejectment against him and in this way, the court held that the tenant is entitled to seek the verdict of the court in order to know to whom he was liable to pay rent for the shop in question.
12. In the instant case, the facts are entirely different. No second petition has been filed by any other person seeking eviction of the petitioner-Punjab State Electricity Board. Infact, it is not even stated so in the copy of plaint of interpleader suit placed on record. In later judgment in Smt. Mohani Devi v. Goka Chand1 (supra), G. C. Mital, J held that proceedings under Section 13 of the Act are not liable to be stayed at the behest of the tenant who otherwise also is not justified to file an interpleader suit in view of bar of order 35 Rule 5 C. P. C. 12 Even otherwise, the Rent Controller in the pending eviction application is firstly to decide the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and it is only thereafter that question of non- payment of rent and its effect would arise. Purpose of application for seeking stay of the proceedings in view of pendency of interpleader suit is solely to prolong the final adjudication of the Rent Application, Resultantly the revision petition is without merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.