Delhi District Court
This Order Shall Decide The Application ... vs . on 6 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE10
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 60/13
Dr. Lokesh Bhatnagar & Ors.
Vs.
Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors.
ORDER:
1. This order shall decide the application of the defendant no. 1 U/o VII R 11 r/w Section 151 CPC.
2. The plaintiffs have filed the present interpleader suit. It is contended in the present application that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable U/o 35 R 5 CPC as the tenant cannot file interpleader suit against the landlords. It is averred that the plaintiff is claiming interest in the property and cannot filed interpleader suit.
3. Alongwith the application, the defendant has also annexed a photocopy of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by defendant no. 2A against the defendant no. 1 and others seeking a declaration that sale deed dated 26.08.2009 executed by defendant no. 2 therein in favour of the defendant no. 1 therein be declared as null and void as well as for permanent injunction.
Suit No. 60/13 Dr. Lokesh Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 1/6
4. In the reply, the plaintiffs have vehemently opposed the application and referring to para 18 of the written statement of the defendant no. 1 wherein the defendant no. 1 has contended that defendant no. 2 has not challenged the sale deed in favour of the defendant no. 1 till date and contends that even if now the defendant no. 2 challenges the sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2, the same can not affect the rights of the plaintiff in the present suit and further, the filing of the civil suit by defendant no. 2 against defendant no. 1 wherein the plaintiffs were not a party could not frustrate the cause of action in the present case which arose against the defendants collectively. The averments made in the application are denied. It is prayed that the application be dismissed. Oral arguments were advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1.
5. Heard and perused.
6. Order 35 R 5 CPC provides as under "5. Agents and tenants may not institute interpleader suits. Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to enable agents to sue their principals, or tenants to sue their landlords, for the purpose of compelling them to interplead with any persons other than persons making claim through such principals or landlords."
7. The defendant no. 1 placed reliance on the judgment of Jugal Kishore Vs. Bhagwan Das AIR 1990 Punjab & Haryana 82 wherein it was held that Suit No. 60/13 Dr. Lokesh Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2/6 according to the provisions of Order 35 R 5 CPC, the tenant cannot sue his landlords for the purpose of compelling them to interplead with any persons other than persons making claim through the landlord. The facts of the said case were that the tenant had filed the interpleader suit submitting that the defendant no. 1 had transferred his right in respect of the demised premises through a civil court decree in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3. The defendants no. 2 and 3 therein filed a petition U/s 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act against the plaintiff wherein the rent was fixed however the plaintiff thereafter received a notice from defendants no. 4 to 19 claiming themselves to be owners alleging defendant no. 1 therein to be their agent and having no right of ownership over the suit property. It was held that as admittedly the defendants no. 4 to 19 were not claiming through the landlords defendants no. 1 to 3 denying the rights of defendants no. 1 to 3, the tenant could not maintain a suit against the landlords defendants no. 1 to 3 compelling them to interplead with defendants no. 4 to 19.
8. Such is not the case in the present suit. In the present suit, the plaintiffs have contended the defendant no. 2 to be the registered owner and landlord of the suit premises. It is the plaintiffs' case that during the continuance of the tenancy in the month of November 2009, the plaintiffs received a legal notice dated 12.11.2009 from defendant no. 1 wherein the defendant no. 1 claimed to have purchased the suit property from defendant no. 2 vide registered sale Suit No. 60/13 Dr. Lokesh Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 3/6 deed dated 26.08.2009 and putting him to notice that the tenancy had been determined vide notice dated 31.12.2009. The plaintiffs aver that they tendered rent under protest believing defendant no. 1 to be owner but on enquiry from defendant no. 2 it was revealed that defendant no. 2 had no knowledge about the factum of the sale of the suit property and plaintiffs facing threats of forceful dispossession at the instance of defendant no. 1 filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on 21.12.2009. It is further the plaintiffs' case that they received legal notices dated 21.03.2011 and 28.03.2011 from two of the managing trustees of defendant no. 2 that the General Power of Attorney dated 21.07.2009 executed in favour of erstwhile Managing Trustee Sh. Mukesh Tulsian had been revoked and plaintiffs were instructed not to deal with the suit property in any manner without the written permission from the Managing Trustees of defendant no. 2. In August 2012, defendant no. 1 preferred an application U/s 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 seeking permission from the competent authority to initiate proceedings against the plaintiff which was allowed on 07.02.2013. The plaintiffs informed the head office of defendant no. 2 in this regard and received a notice dated 16.10.2012 from defendant no. 2 calling upon the plaintiffs to pay arrears of rent fro the last 51 months failing which eviction proceedings would be initiated. Plaintiffs complied with the same. The plaintiffs in these circumstances aver that as defendant no. 1 is claiming Suit No. 60/13 Dr. Lokesh Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 4/6 ownership through defendant no. 2, the bar of Order 35 R 5 CPC is not applicable and plaintiffs do not claim as interest except charges and cost of various litigations and in addition were ready and willing to pay the rent so far accused to the rightful claimant.
9. It is pertinent to note that the defendant no. 1 in the written statement does not deny the fact that the interest is being claimed through defendant no. 2, the contention of defendant no. 1 is that the defendant no. 2 has not challenged the sale deed till date and it is contended that the cheque qua the sale deed was issued in the name of defendant no. 2 which had been encashed in the account of defendant no. 2. The pleadings of the defendant no. 1 clearly show that defendant no. 1 is claiming through the defendant no. 2 and the plaint averments are specifically to this effect. In Prem Lata Vs. Bhupinder Singh 2000 (2) RCR (Rent) 461, it was held that Order 35 R 5 CPC clearly spells out that the tenant has a right to file a suit against all those persons who claim their ownership/relationship of landlord or tenant through the landlord.
10. The object of Order 35 R 5 CPC is to prevent a tenant from compelling his landlord to have his title determined against a stranger and it is settled law that an interpleader suit is maintainable if the landlord subsequent to the letting does anything whereby his right to recover the rent is entangled. Even the judgment of Jugal Kishore (supra) relied on by the defendant no. 1 clearly Suit No. 60/13 Dr. Lokesh Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 5/6 mentions that the tenant cannot sue his landlord for compelling him to intereplead with any person other than the person making claim through the landlord and where parties were not claiming through landlords of the tenant but independent rights of ownership.
11. In the present case, as per the plaintiff averments which only are germane for deciding the application U/o VII R 11 CPC, show that the plaintiff's case is that the defendant no. 1 is claiming to have became the owner vide a registered sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in his favour thus obviously, the defendant no. 1 claims through the defendant no. 2 the admitted landlord as per the plaintiff and does not claim independent rights denying those of defendant no. 2 (at least at the time of execution of the purported sale deed). The fact further is that the suit for declaration allegedly filed by defendant no. 2 herein against defendant no. 1 and others to which plaintiff claims he is not a party, would not be a ground for rejection of the plaint.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion the application of the defendant no. 1 U/o VII R 11 r/w Section 151 CPC is dismissed.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 06.08.2014 Civil Judge - 10 (Central)
06.08.2014
Suit No. 60/13 Dr. Lokesh Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 6/6