Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumari Alias Raj Rani vs Surjit Singh Alias Bilu And Ors. on 26 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR161
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This shall dispose of RSA Nos. 2720 and 2721 of 1993, preferred by the tenant in interpleader suit.
2. One A.S. Jaspal, retired Inspector General of Police, was owner of the property in dispute. He died, some time in the year 1951 leaving behind two widows, namely, Rajbans Kaur and Bhagwan Kaur. It is the admitted case of the parties that tenant, Raj Kumari @ Raj Rani took the demised premises on rent from Rajbans Kaur and Bhagwan Kaur. Rajbans Kaur died in the year 1979 whereas Bhagwan Kaur died on 20.10.1983. After their death, on 22.9.1986 Raj Kumari instituted an interpleader sure, against Surjit Singh and M.S. Judge alleging that there is a dispute regarding inheritance to the property of H.S. Jaspal between Surjit Singh and M.S. Judge and, therefore, it be determined as to whom the rent is payable'. Upon notice, suit was contested- by Surjit Singh and M.S. Judge, namely, defendants 1 and 2. Legal objection regarding maintainability of the suit was also taken. The learned trial Court framed a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit. The said issue was decided in favour of the tenant and no revision against that order was preferred either by the plaintiff or defendants. Trial Court thereafter framed issues on merits and after the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence, the trial Court declared Surjit Singh and M.S. Judge to be owners of the demised premises in equal share and, therefore, held them entitled to receive rent in that ratio. Two appeals were preferred before Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, one by M.S. Judge and another by Surjit Singh. In both the appeals, defendants again raised the issue in regard to maintainability of the suit. The learned Additional District Judge set aside the finding of trial Court on the preliminary issue, meaning thereby that interpleader suit filed by the tenant was held to be not maintainable. As a result of finding on the preliminary issue, appeal was allowed and suit of the plaintiff dismissed. Hence, the present second appeals by the tenant.
3. Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of tenant has contended that the learned Additional District Judge is not right in saying that suit in the present form is not maintainable. In this regard, .counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court in Om Parkash Kapoor v. Nirmala Devi and Ors., (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 148. Against this, it has been contended by Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate, counsel for respondents that tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord during subsistence of his tenancy. In this context, she has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Jagdish Rai and Anr. v. Sh. Sada Nand, (1993-2)104 P.L.R. 202 and Smt Mohani Devi v. Sh. Gokal Chand and Anr., (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 181. She has also contended that M.S. Judge, one of the defendants, had filed an ejectment application against the plaintiff and in that application, issue in regard to relationship of landlord and tenant came to be decided by the Rent Controller in favour of M.S. Judge. She has further contended that Rent Controller held M.S Judge to be landlord of the plaintiff.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that there is no merit in the appeals. Order 35, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prohibits the tenant to bring a suit against his landlord for the purpose of compelling him to interplead with any person other than the person making claim through such landlord. In the case before me, after the death of Rajbans Kaur and Bhagwan Kaur the tenant started paying rent to M.S. Judge and at no stage Surjit Singh claimed himself to be landlord of the property, qua the plaintiff. In fact, no evidence has been brought on record by the tenant to show that Surjit Singh initiated any proceedings either in regard to ejectment of plaintiff or recovery of rent from the plaintiff. In this situation, interpleader suit by the tenant denying the title of his landlord was not maintainable. This Court in Jagdish Rai's and Mohani Devi's cases (supra) has held that an interpleader suit on behalf of tenant against the landlord is not maintainable. In Om Parkash Kapoor's case (supra), interpleader suit on behalf of tenant was held to be maintainable because on the death of original landlord, two sets of persons sought ejectment claiming themselves to be landlords. As seen, in the present case, on behalf of Surjit Singh, defendant, there had been no proceedings against the plaintiff for his ejectment or for recovery of rent.
5. Consequently, both the appeals, namely RSA No. 2720 of 1993 and 2721 of 1993, fail. The same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.