Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Singh vs Rajinder Singh Alias Rajinder Singh ... on 25 March, 2026
RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.03.27 15:52 a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121 (1) CR-1621-2026 Date of Decision: 25.03.2026 AMRIK SINGH ....Petitioner Versus RAJINDER SINGH ALIAS RAJINDER SINGH WARAICH THROUGH HIS LRS ...Respondent
122 (2) CR-2029-2026 TAJINDER SINGH ALIAS TAJINDERJIT SINGH ....Petitioner Versus RAJINDER SINGH ALIAS RAJINDER SINGH WARAICH THROUGH HIS LRS ...Respondent 123 (3) CR-2038-2026 WITH CR-2065-2026 KULWANT RAI ....Petitioner Versus RAJINDER SINGH ALIAS RAJINDER SINGH WARAICH THROUGH HIS LRS ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner (in all cases).
Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the caveator (in all cases).
3k 2k 3 PARMOD GOYAL, J. (QRAL)Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that Civil Revision Nos.2029-2026, CR-2038-2026 & CR-2065-2026 are connected with the present case as being filed by different tenants against the same I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.03.27 15:52 CR-1621-2026 CR-2029-2026 CR-2038-2026 WITH CR-2065-2026 2. landlord on same facts. In view of the same, above said revision petitions are taken up with the present case.
2. The present civil revision has been preferred by petitioner- tenant being aggrieved by order dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by Rent Auhtority, Jalandhar whereby application filed by petitioner to adjourn rent petition till pendency of interpleader suit preferred by petitioner(s)/tenant(s) was dismissed and further vide order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by Appellate Authority, Jalandhar appeal preferred by petitioner was also dismissed.
3. It is the case of petitioner-tenant that he had taken suit premises on rent from Teja Singh in 1960s. Teja Singh had three sons and two daughters. Teja Singh was succeeded by his sons namely Rajinder Singh, Surinder Singh and Mohinder Singh and two daughters namely Tarlochan Kaur and Davinder Kaur. Rajinder Singh had died on 27.11.2019, Surinder had died on 29.12.1980, Mohinder had died on 14.08.2011 and Tarlochan had died on 24.05.2021.
4. It is the case of petitioner-tenant that after death of Teja Singh, Sherry Mandeep Kaur Sahota daughter of Mohinder Singh had preferred an ejectment petition titled as 'Sherry Mandeep Kaur Vs. Tajinder Singh' claiming rent from the petitioner-tenant. In said ejectment petition, rent was duly paid by petitioner-tenant and thereafter, the said ejectment petition was withdrawn by Sherry Mandeep Kaur daughter of Mohinder Singh and son of Teja Singh. It is further asserted that petitioner-tenant now another son namely Rajinder Singh had preferred present eviction petition. Rajinder I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.03.27 15:52 CR-1621-2026 CR-2029-2026 CR-2038-2026 WITH CR-2065-2026 3. Singh had died during pendency of said eviction petition and his LRs were impleaded in his place claiming themselves to be the landlord. Accordingly, petitioner-tenant had filed an interpleader suit seeking direction from the Court as to who is the rightful landlord and has also preferred application in eviction petition to stay proceedings in eviction petition till his/their interpleader suit is decided.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier Sherry Mandeep Kaur Sahota was claiming to be owner-landlord and had filed an eviction petition and after her death, her husband namely Paramjit Singh Sahota has been receiving rent from petitioner-tenant. Now, Rajinder Singh is also claiming rent of same premises and therefore, it is necessary to find out as to who is entitled to receive rent and unless this fact is decided, eviction proceedings cannot proceed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent on the other point submits that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Sherry Mandeep Kaur Sahota and Amrik Singh. The tenancy was between petitioner-Amrik Singh and landlord Teja Singh who had died leaving his five LRs along with her wife Amar Kaur. Since out of five sons and daughters four out of them as well as his wife have already died. Suit property would be jointly owned by all the LRs and therefore, the earlier eviction petition filed by Sherry Mandeep Kaur Sahota was on behalf of all the LRs and present interpleader suit is only to delay and avoid liability under eviction petition.
7. On consideration, I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of respondent. Admittedly, the tenancy was between petitioner-Amrik Singh I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1621-2026 CR-2029-2026 CR-2038-2026 WITH CR-2065-2026 _4- and landlord-Teja Singh. Teja Singh was the landlord qua petitioner. Sherry Mandeep Kaur Sahota or Rajinder Singh now through his LRs has got no independent right as landlord, they became landlord being LRs of Teja Singh deceased and as far as petitioner-tenant is concerned, he cannot take plea that one out of several LRs of Teja Singh would be his landlord.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that in view of bar under Order XXXV Rule 5 CPC, the interpleader suit filed by petitioner who is tenant is not maintainable. I do not want to give any finding on this issue as it would have impact on the suit pending before the Court. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in petition preferred by petitioner- tenant whereby, his application for stay has been dismissed. It is petitioner- tenant who has to take call to accept or not to accept Rajinder Singh as his landlord being LR of Teja Singh. Prima facie the interpleader suit is not justified in facts and circumstances of present case, however, this view is taken only for deciding the present revision petition and shall have no effect on the merits of the case preferred by either petitioner or respondent.
9. Revision petitions are accordingly dismissed being without any merit.
10. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 25.03.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.03.27 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document