Delhi District Court
Ghanshyam Dass vs Ankur Jindal on 23 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT-CUM- GUARDIAN
JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 127/2014
UNIQUE ID NO. 02406C0247602014
GHANSHYAM DASS
Son of Late Ram Kumar Sharma,
R/o 18, Ward No.I, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030.
....Plaintiff
Vs.
1. ANKUR JINDAL
S/o Shri Jain Prakash Jindal,
R/o 74, Chaar Dham Apartment,
Sector-9, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
2. RAJINDER KUMAR KALRA
S/o Late Ram Dayal.
3. RAVINDER KUMAR KALRA,
S/o Late Ram Dayal.
Both R/o 18/1 (Old No.948/2)
Ward No.I, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030.
....Defendants
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.09.2014
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 07.05.2016
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.05.2016
CS No.127/2014 Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Ankur Jindal & Ors. Page No. 1 of 8
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application filed by defendants no.2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Brief facts essential for disposal of the present application are that the plaintiff has claimed himself to be the tenant of part of property bearing No.18, Ward No.I, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030. The suit property was earlier let out to a firm M/s Mehrauli Dehat Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently, the father of the plaintiff being one of the Directors started using the suit property for his residential purpose. The plaintiff has stepped into the shoes of his father and is occupying the same as a tenant under defendants no.2 and 3. Due to long drawn litigations between M/s Mehrauli Dehat Transport Pvt. Ltd. and defendants no.2 and 3, the plaintiff could not tender rent to defendants no.2 and 3. The plaintiff subsequently, tendered the entire arrears of rent in favour of the defendants no.2 and 3 through money order which was refused by the defendants no.2 and 3. Defendants no.2 and 3 filed an eviction petition against the plaintiffs under Section 14(i)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bonafide requirement which is pending before the Court of law. During the pendency of the eviction petition, plaintiff received a legal notice from defendant no.1 claiming CS No.127/2014 Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Ankur Jindal & Ors. Page No. 2 of 8 himself to be the co-owner of the suit property and called the upon the plaintiff to pay his share of rent. Defendant no.1 on one hand and defendants no.2 and 3 on the other hand are rival claimants to the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff cannot be harassed and made to litigate with two rival claimants. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant no.1 choose not to appear and contest the suit and accordingly was proceeded ex-parte.
4. Defendants no.2 and 3 entered contest by filing written statement as well as application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is the contention of the defendants no.2 and 3 that the suit is barred by Order XXXV Rule 5 of CPC and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff. Tenancy of plaintiff is denied and it is stated that M/s Mehrauli Dehat Transport Pvt. Ltd. was tenant of defendants no.2 and 3. The factum of eviction petition under Section 14(i)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is admitted.
5. Since the plaintiff has admitted himself to be tenant of defendants no.2 and 3 and also he has been paying rent to the said defendants. Hence, the suit is barred by Order XXXV Rule 5 of CPC as being the tenant of defendants no.2 and 3, the plaintiff CS No.127/2014 Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Ankur Jindal & Ors. Page No. 3 of 8 cannot file the inter-pleader suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is stated to be false frivolous and are accordingly liable to be dismissed.
6. In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is stated that since the suit is barred by Order XXXV Rule 5 of CPC, hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
7. Reply to the application has been filed by the plaintiff where averments in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC have been vehemently denied.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the both the counsels.
9. Before disposing off the present application, it would be pertinent to reproduce the provisions laid down under Order 35 Rule 5 CPC that:
"Agents and tenants may not institute interpleader suits:-
Nothing in the 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."
CS No.127/2014 Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Ankur Jindal & Ors. Page No. 4 of 8 As per the said provision, tenants cannot file an interpleader suit against their landlords. The plaintiff has admitted defendants no.2 and 3 to be his landlord and has also stated to have paid rent in the past to the said defendants.
10. The scope of applicability of interpleader suit has been aptly discussed in judgment relied upon the defendants titled as Mohd. Atiq Vs. Ainuddin & Ors that:
Scope of the applicability of an interpleader suit under Order 35 is as per the confines of the various sub-rules as mentioned under Order 35. The requirement of a tenant not disputing his liability to pay his landlord in terms of Order 35 Rule 5 is on the substratum of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which steppes a tenant from challenging the title of his landlord. Thus, it is in aid of this aid of this Section 116, that Order 35 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure provides that a tenant cannot file an interpleader suit on the ground that there are different landlords of his premises. The object of filing an interpleader suit, by a tenant, who is a tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is only to avoid his eviction for non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the present case, since there cannot be eviction of the Appellants/plaintiffs on account of failure to comply with an CS No.127/2014 Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Ankur Jindal & Ors. Page No. 5 of 8 legal notice sent under Section 14(1) (a) inasmuch as Appellants/plaintiffs are not claiming under Delhi Rent Control Act there is no prejudice if they do not deposit the rent in the interpleader suit. In any case, liability for eviction for non-payment under Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is avoided by and otherwise provided by virtue of Section 27 of the said Act which allows the tenant to deposit rent in court so as to avoid the liability on account of default of non-compliance with Section Section 14(1) (a) by payment within two months of receipt of a legal notice demanding arrears of rent. So far as the prejudice to the appellants/plaintiffs of harassment by the landlords is concerned, be it respondent no.1 or respondent no.2, is not at all in issue because it is not as if that there are various litigations initiated by the Respondents no.1 and 2, claiming rents for separate periods in separate courts, which would have resulted in harassment of the appellants/ plaintiff in contesting various suits for recovery of rent in different courts. In fact admittedly not a single suit for recovery of rent or eviction for failure to pay the rent is pending in any court. In fact under the ordinary civil law with respect to failure to pay rent, there is not automatic eviction because Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent in case the tenant, in a suit filed by landlord for eviction from the tenanted premises in civil court, agrees to pay the CS No.127/2014 Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Ankur Jindal & Ors. Page No. 6 of 8 arrears of rent together with interest and costs of the suit. Therefore, there is no prejudice to the appellants/ plaintiffs of a threat of their eviction from the land of which they claim to be tenants and having made construction thereafter upon the same.
In the instant case, the plaintiff has made payment to the defendants for last several years, hence the defendants cannot dispute their liability to pay rent to defendants no.2 and 3. Even if it is assumed, there are disputes if any between defendant no.1 on one side or defendants no.2 and 3 on the other side. It is for them to sort out those disputes in a civil court. In a interpleader suit, the interest of plaintiff is only to avoid any legal liability. Further, the object of filing the interpleader suit has been explained in the aforesaid judgment. The same has been reiterated in the judgment titled as Rajan Sharma & Ors Vs. Labh Singh & Ors (2011) 163 PLR351.
11. In view of the law laid down, it is undisputed that no eviction proceedings have been filed against the plaintiff for non- payment of rent by either of the defendants i.e. defendant no.1 and defendants no.2 & 3 jointly. Hence, the plaintiff is not aggrieved in any manner to have filed an interpleader suit. Moreover, it is an admitted case of the plaintiff that he has always paid rent to defendants no.2 and 3 and their predecessors CS No.127/2014 Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Ankur Jindal & Ors. Page No. 7 of 8 in interest. Even if now the same is refused by defendants no.2 and 3, no law precludes the plaintiff from depositing the rent in court under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
12. The instant suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order XXXV Rule 5 of CPC and same being barred by provision of law is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11d of CPC.
13. The application is accordingly allowed. The plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
14. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Pooja Talwar) JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Announced in the open court today i.e 23rd May, 2016.
CS No.127/2014 Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Ankur Jindal & Ors. Page No. 8 of 8