Union Bank of India vs Gopi Krishna and Others

Rajesh Balia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated September 4, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2 Jodhpur in the defendant-petitioner''s appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated March 17, 1989.

Respondent No. 1 Gopi Krishan had filed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the defendant-petitioner interalia on the ground that he was committed default in making payment of rent as envisaged u/s 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short hereinafter to be called as the Act'') and has rendered himself liable for edjucement from the suit premises.

The defendant denied that the relationship of the landlord and tenant exist between himself and the plaintiff. The trial Court while considering the matter for the purposes of determining the amount of rent payable to the plaintiff-landlord u/s 13(3) of the Act, came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the landlord-plaintiff and defendant-petitioner, and further determined the amount of rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The present petitioner-defendant filed appeal against the aforesaid order raising the ground that he has already deposited too amount of rent in the interpleader suit that he has filed against plaintiff and two Others for determining as to who is his landlord and he cannot be asked to deposit the rent second time. The plaintiff-landlord may be directed to adjust the amount of rent deposited in the court in the interpleader suit.

This contention of the appellant before the lower appellate Court was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff-landlord cannot be compelled to adjust the amount deposited else where.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Court''s below have committed error of jurisdiction in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 13(3) of the Act, in as much as no relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties which is a sina qua non for determining amount of rent payable u/s 13(3) of the Act.

I am unable to accept this contention.

As has been noticed above, the Courts below have found the petitioner to he a tenant or respondent No. 1. The Court while proceeding u/s 13(3) of the Act had jurisdiction to decide the question whether prima facie the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties and in deciding it, if the Court has taken a particular view of the material on record, it cannot be said that the Court has committed any error in assuming jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Moreover, I find from the memo of revision that the petitioner has not even challenged that finding by raising a ground to that effect.

It was then contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he having deposited the amount in interpleader suit, he cannot be asked to deposit the amount of rent again and plaintiff ought to be directed to adjust the said deposit against the amount mentioned to be paid by the Court u/s 13(3) of the Act, This contention of the learned Counsel also does not merits acceptance on principle.

It may be noticed that in the interpleader suit, the amount was not deposited qua any person. It is deposited only to be paid to successful party at the end of he proceedings. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant has aright to claim adjustment of the amount directed to be paid u/s 13(3) of the Act, against any other amount deposited in other suit, adjustment of which depends upon the culmination of the proceedings.

The amount so deposited in an interpleader suit is not directly paid or payable to the plaintiff in the rent suit. Moreover, in the present case, it has been brought to the notice by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the interpleader suit has been dismissed finally by this Court on December 20, 1990 and yet the petitioner has not made any efforts to comply with order dated March 17, 1989 passed by the trial Court.

As a result, I find no force in the revision petition.

The petition is dismissed summarily.