Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Rai And Anr. vs Sada Nand on 22 April, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR387
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This will diipose of Civil Revision No. 48 of 1993. The dispute in both the revision petitions is between the land-lord and the tenant.
2. Sada Nand who is a tenant, took the premises on rent from the predecessor of Jagdish Rai and another (petitioners in Civil Revision No. 937 of 1992). The United Church of Northern India, Ludhiana, (briefly 'the Church') issued a notice in January, to Sada Nand, calling upon him to pay rent as it claimed to be the owner of the premises. On 12.2 1985, a suit for declaration was filed by the Church, claiming itself to be the owner. In the suit, it impleaded Sada Nand as one of the defendants along with Jagdish Rai and, another. Sada Nand also filed a interpleader suit on l6.6.1985, impleading ths Church as well as Jagdish Rai and another as defendants. In the suit, he made an offer to deposit the rent in the Court, pending consideration as to who is the owner of the premises. Jagdish Rai filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (briefly 'the Act') for the ejectment of Sada Nand on the ground of non payment of rent as well as on the ground of impairment of value and utility of the premises and also change of user It was brought to the notice of the Rent Controller by the tenant that he had already filed a interpleader suit and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act are liable to be stayed. On his application, proceedings under Section 13 of the Act were stayed. This order is being impugned in Civil Revision No. 937 of 1992.
3. In Civil Revision No. 48 of 1993, an application was filed by the tenant for staying of the suit on the ground that the suit be stayed till the decision of the suit filedby the Church. On the statement of the counsel for the parties, the suit was stayed. Jagdish Rai and another were permitted to revive the ejectment application pending before the Rent Controller. This part of the order has been challenged in Civil Revision No. 48 of 1993, by the tenant.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that Civil Revision No. 937 of 1992 deserves to succeed and in consequence thereof, Civil Revision No. 48 of 1993 has to be dismissed. Order 35, rule-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prohibits the tenant from filing a interpleader suit against his landlord. This provision is based on the principle that the tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord during the subsistence of the tenancy It has been fairly conceded by the counsel for the tenant that the tenant took the premises on rent from the predecessor of Jagdish Rai and another and had been paying rent to them alone and to noneelse. Though the contention is that the premises were let out in the capacity of an Agent of the Church, yet there is nothing on record to show that at the time of letting out the premises, the predecessor of Jagdish Rai had ever acted as Agent of the Church. Learned counsel for the tenant has placed reliance on Exception tofRule-5 of Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to contend that an interpleader suit is competent if the claim is being made by any other person through the landlord. For the facility of reference rule-5 of Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced as under :--
"5. Agents and tenants may not institute interpleader suits -- Nothing in this 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."
According to the aforesaid provision, the tenant could not sue 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, the Church is not claiming that it derived title from Jagdish Rai and another or their predecessors. Both of them are setting up an independent title of ownership in them and, therefore, prohibition contained in Rule-5 of Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is clearly attracted. No suit on behalf of the tenant would be maintainable against his landlord, compelling him to interplead the Church. The learned counsel for the tenant has strongly placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Om Parkash Kapoor v. Nirmala Devi, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 148. This judgment is clearly distinguishable and is not attracted at all to the facts of the present case. In that case, on the death of landlord, two sets of people claimed ownership. One was a widow and another a son. In such circumstances, the interpleader suit filed by the tenant was held to be maintainable. However, this is not the position as far as the present case is concerned.
5. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside and Civil Revision No. 937 of 1992 is allowed and as a consequence thereof, Civil Revision No. 48 of 1993 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.