Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspreet Singh And Others vs Sandeep Kumar And Another on 25 April, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 2484 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2484 of 2012
Date of decision : April 25, 2012
Jaspreet Singh and others ....Petitioners
versus
Sandeep Kumar and another
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Jaspreet Singh etc. (respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 before the Rent Controller) have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act) assailing order dated 22.3.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Pehowa, thereby dismissing application of tenants (petitioners and proforma respondent no. 2 herein) for staying the ejectment petition which has been filed by respondent no. 1 - landlord under section 13 of the Act.
Respondent no. 1 landlord has claimed that he has become Civil Revision No. 2484 of 2012 -2- owner of the demised premises on the basis of decree Ex. P2 passed in civil suit No. 632 of 2005 and therefore, he has become landlord of the demised premises.
The tenants alleged in their application that earlier one Ashwani Kumar claimed to have become owner of the demised property vide decree dated 27.4.1994 suffered by Sarla Devi widow of original landlord Amar Nath. Now legal heirs of Sarla Devi have challenged the said decree passed in favour of Ashwani Kumar and have also challenged the ownership of respondent no. 1 herein on the basis of aforesaid decree and therefore, title of respondent no. 1 herein is under challenge in the civil suit filed by legal heirs of Sarla Devi and consequently, the instant ejectment petition is liable to be stayed.
Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order Annexure P/1 refused to stay the ejectment petition. Feeling aggrieved, tenants have filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that title of respondent no. 1 herein being under challenge, the ejectment petition is liable to be stayed. The contention cannot be accepted. The decree declaring respondent no. 1 herein to be owner of the demised property (consequently respondent no. 1 Civil Revision No. 2484 of 2012 -3- having become landlord) is under challenge in the suit but has not been stayed. The said decree still stands and is effective. Consequently, there is no ground to stay the proceedings in the ejectment petition.
In any event, the tenants may file interpleader suit if they are facing any problem in payment of rent or otherwise. Contention of counsel for the petitioners that in view of Order 35 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) tenants cannot file interpleader suit, cannot be accepted because under the said provision, tenants cannot sue their landlords for the purpose of compelling them to interplead with any persons other than persons making claim through the landlords. In the instant case, rival claimants in the suit seek ownership of the demised property claimed through the original landlord Amar Nath and then through his widow Sarla Devi. Consequently, interpleader suit by tenants is permissible and is not barred by Order 35 Rule 5 CPC.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity much less illegality, perversity, impropriety or jurisdictional error in impugned order of learned Rent Controller so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is meritless and is therefore, dismissed in limine.
( L.N. Mittal )
April 25, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'