Delhi District Court
By This Order I Shall Dispose Of An ... vs Unknown on 8 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMEER BAJPAI, JSCCCUMASCJ
CUMGUARDIAN JUDGE (WEST): DELHI
Suit No. 1981/08
M/s. Compro Computers (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another
vs.
Smt. Mukta Jain & others
O R D E R
08.07.2013
1. By this order I shall dispose of an application filed by the defendant no. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present application are succinctly given here under:
2. Plaintiff no. 1 is a private limited company. It is the case of the plaintiff that property being shop No. G8, Ground Floor, Vishal Bhawan, 95, Nehru Place, New Delhi110019 was jointly let out to the plaintiffs at the monthly rent of Rs.49,100/ for a period of three years, which was to expire on 31.05.2010 by one Sh. Anil Jain S/o Late Sh. J.P. Jain.
3. Sh. Anil Jain expired on 25.04.2008 and after that plaintiff received legal notice sent on behalf of the defendant no.2, the son of Sh. Anil Jain and the defendant no.3, who is the real brother of Sh. Anil Jain claiming themselves to be the owner Suit NO. 1981/08 Page No. 4/1 of the shop and calling upon the plaintiffs not to pay the rent of the shop to any one without their permission. The plaintiffs were further approached by the defendant no.1 who is the window of Sh. Anil Jain along with an alleged Will of her late husband claiming that as per the Will, she is entitled to succeed to the shop. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they received legal notice dated 18.06.2006 sent by the defendant no.1 thereby terminating the tenancy of the plaintiffs and threatening them to file a suit for recovery allegedly for non payment of rent to her. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the light of infighting between the defendants, the plaintiffs are left with no remedy and they are not in a legal position to decide as to whom the rent is to be paid. The plaintiffs have filed this interpleader suit to get decide the respective rights of the parties and further the plaintiffs have claimed no interest in the subject matter in dispute except charges and costs of the pleadings.
4. The defendant no. 2 has filed a written statement wherein he has denied the averments made in the suit. It has been further alleged that Ms. Mukta Jain has never lived as a wife of late Sh. Anil Jain and she is not the legal successor and further that Will is a forged and a fabricated one.
5. The defendants no. 3 and 4 in their written statement have also denied the averments made in the suit. Suit NO. 1981/08 Page No. 4/2
6. The defendant no. 1 in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has prayed that the present suit is not maintainable and his liable to be dismissed for lack of any right available to the plaintiff for filing the interpleader suit. For his support, the defendant no. 1 has cited the provisions of Order 35 Rule 5 of CPC, which reads as under:
"5. Agents and tenants may not institute inter pleader 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."
7. It is further the case of the applicant that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in connivance with persons, who have interest adverse to that of the applicant/defendant no.1. It is further the case of the applicant that the plaintiffs have illegally and without any just or reasonable cause impleaded the defendants no. 2 & 3 in the present suit inspite of the fact that those persons do not have any right, title or interest in the suit property.
8. In reply to the application, the plaintiff has denied the averments made in the application. It is further stated that the interpleader suit has not been filed to interplead the landlord with anyone else but it has been filed thereby interplead persons making claim through the landlord. It is further stated that the Suit NO. 1981/08 Page No. 4/3 plain reading of Rule 5 clearly shows that the persons claiming through the principal or the landlord can be interpleaded in a suit filed by the tenant.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
10. A plain reading of Order 35 Rule 5 CPC shows that the landlord cannot be interpleaded with anyone except the ones who are making their claims through the landlord.
11. Admittedly, all the defendants are the legal heirs of the original landlord. Rule 5 makes an exception in favour of the persons who are making their claim through the landlord. In the light of the clear language used in the provision, the Court is of the opinion that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant no. 1 cannot succeed and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Announced in the open Court today the 8th July, 2013.
(SAMEER BAJPAI) JSCCcumASCJcum Guardian Judge (West), Delhi 08.07.2013 Suit NO. 1981/08 Page No. 4/4