Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akhil Bharat Hindu Maha Sabha vs Manav Kumar And Others on 16 July, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No. 6956 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 6956 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: July 16, 2013
Akhil Bharat Hindu Maha Sabha
... Petitioner
Versus
Manav Kumar and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. R.P.Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Saini, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 1 to 10.
Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate,
for respondent No.11.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala whereby direction has been issued to the plaintiffs in the suit to deposit the rent in the Court.
Kumar Virender 2013.07.29 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 6956 of 2011 (O&M) 2
Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed interpleader suit for decree of declaration declaring either of the defendants as lawful owner or landlord of the building in question and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, being not lawful owner or landlord, from claiming any rent from the plaintiffs regarding the building in question situated in Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that as per law the tenants cannot file any interpleader suit as per provisions of Order 35 Rule 5 CPC. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that since the suit was pending and it was yet to be determined as who was actual landlord and entitled to claim the rent from the plaintiffs, so the Court directed the plaintiffs, who had filed the interpleader suit, to deposit the rent in the Court and the same was directed to be released in favour of rightful claimant subject to just exceptions, after determination of the issue of entitlement of the rent.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the landlord as the petitioner has been receiving rent from the plaintiffs against proper receipts vide Annexures P/4 to P/20. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the petitioner is the only landlord, tenant cannot deny the relationship of landlord and tenant.
Kumar Virender2013.07.29 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 6956 of 2011 (O&M) 3
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has no right and title to the property in question. The rent was paid by the plaintiffs through cheques and has made reference to the payment of rent vide different receipts which have been placed on record as Annexure R-11/3 and R-11/4. The said payment is in favour of Hindu Sabha Bhawan, Ambala Cantt, but all of sudden receipts have been prepared by the petitioner which are false and fabricated and do not bear signature of the tenants. The tenants have been paying rent generally by way of cross-cheque. Reference has also been made to the judgment dated 14.05.2012 in which Paramjit Singh, alleged President of the petitioner Sabha was party. The Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was no resolution in favour of Paramjit Singh passed by the plaintiff society authorizing him to execute the lease deed in respect of the suit property. In that case, both the issues i.e. Whether the lease deed dated 24.12.2003, vide document no. 5776 registered in the office of Sub Registrar Ambala alleged to be executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 4 relating to the suit property situated at Rakba Patti, Kalalan District Ambala as detailed in the head note of the plaint, is illegal, null and void and forged document and thus not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and in case issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, then whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for, were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Since the lease deed has been Kumar Virender 2013.07.29 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 6956 of 2011 (O&M) 4 held to be illegal and the suit of the Hindu Sabha was decreed and the petitioner was restrained from alienating, encumbering, transferring any property on the basis of lease deed dated 24.12.2003, the petitioner is not at all entitled to claim any rent from the respondents-plaintiffs who filed interpleader suit.
In the circumstances of the case, the only option left with the Court was that the plaintiffs should have been directed to deposit the rent in the Court and the same would be disbursed to the rightful claimants after the conclusion of the litigation pending between the parties.
In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Present petition is frivolous and is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to the Haryana Legal Services Authority.
July 16, 2013 [Paramjeet Singh]
vkd Judge
Kumar Virender
2013.07.29 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document