P.M. Lokanath vs P. Narasimha Murthy and Smt Jayalakshmi

Jawad Rahim

The petitioner P.M. Lokanath had filed HRC.No. 124/2007 against one P. Narasimha Murthy seeking his eviction on the plea he (P.M. Lokanath) is the owner of the property and P. Narasimha Murthy is a tenant under him.

The tenant on being summoned denied jural relationship of landlord and tenant. In the meantime, one Smt. Jayalakshmi filed application to implead herself in the proceedings claiming she has interest in the property in question and denied the claim of P.M. Lokanath. The application was opposed by P.M. Lokanath and it appears the same is pending. Before the orders could be passed on that application, P.M. Lokanath, on his own volition, filed 3 memo to withdraw the proceedings in HRC.No. 124/2007. However, he made a request before the Court to order payment of amount in deposit made by the first respondent/tenant in his favor. Learned trial Judge while disposing of HRC. No. 124/2007 has directed that the amount in deposit to be paid over to him.

Subsequently, Smt. Jayalakshmi, second respondent herein filed an application to recall the order dated 26.11.2009 I.A. No. IV on the plea that suit in O.S.No. 1154/2008 is pending decision regarding rights of the parties and therefore, till final decision is taken, the amount should be kept in deposit. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order has allowed the application and directed that the amount in deposit shall be retained and shall be disbursed only based on the decision in O.S.No. 1154/2008. Assailing it, this revision is filed on two grounds. Firstly HRC. No. 124/2007 was filed by the petitioner and he had right as permitted under Order XXIII to withdraw the same. In the said proceedings, Jayalakshmi was not in the party array. Her application seeking to implead her in the proceedings is still pending. Therefore, she had no locus to file the application subsequently to recall the order in a disposed of case. The second ground is since he had filed the petition and amount is deposited towards rent, he is entitled to receive the same and rightly while passing orders in HRC. 124/2007, the trial Court had granted that permission. He submits that after disposal of the case, questioning the same through I.A. No. IV was not legally permissible.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supports the impugned order. It is not in dispute that petitioner claiming to be the owner sought eviction of first respondent. But for unexplained reasons, he withdrew the said proceedings. While withdrawing the petition, he requested the Court to permit him to withdraw the amount in deposit towards rent and the Court permitted him to do so. Later, it was brought to notice of the trial Court that O.S.No. 1154/2008 is pending adjudication in which parties have claimed share in the property in question. In this fact situation, it was necessary to retain the amount in deposit till final decision is taken in the said suit. The second reason why the petitioner could not have been permitted to withdraw the amount is as respondent No. 2 has disputed the jural relationship and petitioner did not allow the matter to be decided on merit and since he withdraw it, it is he who should blame himself. In the circumstances, though it could be said that the trial Court should not have accepted the application of respondent No. 2-Jayalakshmi to pass further orders as it becomes focus officio but it must be noticed so for as deposit of rent is concerned, even under the Act itself, when there is dispute as to who is entitled to receive the rent, the amount of rent should be retained till final decision. On this basis, the ultimate decision of the trial Court is right and I find no reason to interfere with the said order. It is affirmed. The petition stand dismissed.

All the contentions raised by the parties relating to their right is kept open.