IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6020 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.9.2011 Jaspreet Singh Dhawan -----Petitioner Vs. Raman Preet Gill -----Respondent and other connected cases being Civil Revision No.6026 of 2011 (O&M) Jaspreet Singh Dhawan -----Petitioner Vs. Gurdip Kaur @ Dinny -----Respondent Civil Revision No.6028 of 2011 (O&M) Harpreet Singh Dhawan -----Petitioner Vs. Raman Preet Gill -----Respondent and Civil Revision No.6030 of 2011 (O&M) Harpreet Singh Dhawan -----Petitioner Vs. Gurdip Kaur @ Dinny -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of four revisions petitions i.e. Civil Revision Nos.6020, 6026, 6028 and 6030 of 2011, as the same have arisen out of same facts and common question of law C.R. No.6020 of 2011 has been raised in all these petitions. However, facts are being noticed from Civil Revision No.6020 of 2011. 2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”) for ejectment of the petitioner from a shop forming part of property No.47-A, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana on the averments that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Originally, S. Harpal Singh Gill husband of the respondent was owner of the property bearing No.47-A, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana and after his death, it was inherited by his LRs namely Raman Preet Kaur Gill (respondent), two minor daughters namely Harjinder Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur and his mother Smt. Bhagwanti. It was further averred that Bhagwanti who died on 14.6.2006, during her lifetime executed a registered Will dated 1.12.2005 in favour of her two grand daughters namely Harjinder Kaur, Gurmeet Kaur and bequeathed her share in the property in dispute to them and thus, the respondent and her two daughters were joint owners of the property in dispute. It was further averred that in her lifetime, Bhagwanti rented out the shop in dispute to the petitioner on a monthly rent of `2,000/- with increase of rent @ 5% every year. The rent was used to be collected by late Bhagwanti upto 31.4.2005 and thereafter, the petitioner stopped paying the rent. The relationship of landlord- tenant existed between the parties and thus, the respondent was 2 C.R. No.6020 of 2011 entitled to receive the rent and the petitioner was liable to be proceeded against non-payment of the rent. 3. Upon notice, the petitioner filed written statement raising various preliminary objections to the effect that the respondent alone has no locus standi to claim the rent as other legal heirs of S. Harpal Singh Gill namely Gurdip Kaur @ Dinny and others were not in agreement with the respondent to allow her to collect the whole rent from him. It was also averred that other legal heirs had also filed rent petitions against the petitioner on the same subject matter and thus, there was dispute between legal heirs of S. Harpal Singh Gill. A civil suit was also pending in Civil Court regarding ownership of the said property and therefore, the respondent cannot collect the rent from him. The petitioner further claimed that he had entered into an agreement dated 20.10.2004 with Smt. Bhagwanti for acquiring rights of the allottee of the shop and the full and final consideration of `3,00,000/- was paid to Smt. Bhagwanti. The petitioner has also filed an Interpleader suit against the respondent as well as other legal heirs of S. Harpal Singh Gill with regard to ownership of the property in dispute as well as the entire property. 4. Petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller for staying the proceedings in the eviction petition till the decision of the impleader suit. The said prayer of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order. 3 C.R. No.6020 of 2011 5. Challenging the aforesaid order and to elaborate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the fact of filing of separate eviction petitions on the same subject matter by the respondent as well as Gurdip Kaur @ Dinny vide Annexures P-2 and P-4 respectively, as both of them claimed themselves to be the owner of the property in dispute and were demanding rent through separate eviction petitions. Moreover, while passing the impugned order, Rent Controller grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the petitioner has filed interpleader suit, making a prayer therein that all the LRs were claiming rent from the petitioner being landlords and he was liable to pay only to such landlord who was entitled to receive the rent if it is found payable to him and there being dispute of ownership of the property, the Rent Controller should have stayed the proceedings in the ejectment petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly without any merit and the instant revision petitions are liable to be rejected at the outset. It is useful to refer to Order 35 Rule 5 CPC, which reads thus:- “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 person other 4 C.R. No.6020 of 2011 than persons making claim through such principal or landlords.” 7. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, tenants are not entitled to file interpleader suit against the landlord for the purpose of compelling them to interplead with any person other than person making claim through such landlords. Admittedly, in the instant case, none of the LRs of landlord S. Harpal Singh Gill is making any claim against each other. Not only this, admittedly, all the eviction petitions filed against the petitioner by the LRs of S. Harpal Singh Gill have been consolidated and once that is so, appropriate relief regarding payment of rent to the rightful landlord can always be prayed before the Rent Controller where petitions are pending. Mere filing of interpleader suit does not give right to stay the proceedings. 8. Thus, this Court finds no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. September 29, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 5