IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5220 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: March 08, 2011 M/s Metro Tyres Limited .. Petitioner Vs. Mahesh Chander and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Avinish Mittal, Advocate for the respondent No.7. A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 8.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala, as well as the order dated 28.7.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Ambala. It is admitted fact between the parties that the respondent Mahesh Chander had filed a suit claiming title over the property against Dali Rani, claiming property of Om Parkash under whom the petitioner was a tenant and thereafter the present interpleader suit was filed which was held to be not maintainable by the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through the provisions of Section 88 of the CPC in order to contend that even in that situation, interpleader suit was not maintainable. Section 88 of the CPC is reproduced as under :- “88. Where interpleader suit may be instituted – Where two or more persons claim adversely to one another the same debt, sum of money or other property, movable or immovable, from another person, who claims no interest therein other than for charges or costs and who is ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant, such other person may institute a suit of interpleader against all the claimants for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment or delivery shall be made and of obtaining indemnity for himself: Civil Revision No. 5220 of 2009 -2- *** Provided that where any suit is pending in which the rights of all Parties can properly be decided, no such suit of interpleader shall be instituted.” Again, the learned counsel has taken me through the provisions of Order XXXV Rule 5 of the Code which is reproduced as under :- “Agents and tenants may not institute inter-pleader suits – Nothing in this order shall be deemed to the 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.” From the bare reading of these two provisions, it transpires that a tenant could not file the interpleader suit against his landlord. Not only this, in the instant case, the position of the respondent is on the better footings as the rival claimants had already filed the suit for getting the matter adjudicated with regard to the rights and title over the property of Om Parkash deceased and it was to be decided in that suit as to who is entitled to receive rent. It has also been informed by Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate that vide judgment dated 24.2.2011, the suit filed by Mahesh Chander has been decided whereby Mahesh Chander as well as defendants No.5 and 6 i.e. sons and widow and also Sneh Lata and Manju Bala daughters of Om Parkash were held to be legal heirs and has also urged that now in the light of the judgment dated 24.2.2011 pased by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala, they are entitled to receive rent. However, Mr. Avinish Mittal, Advocate has submitted that he wants to file appeal against the said judgment, therefore, till the final decision over the title of the property, the amount cannot be disbursed to Mahesh Chander etc. in terms of order dated 24.2.2011. Definitely since the limitation for filing the appeal has not expired as such judgment cannot be said to have attained finality. Civil Revision No. 5220 of 2009 -3- *** Learned counsel for the petitioner has time and again stressed that since the question with regard to entitlement of the rent is still in controversy, therefore, interpleader suit was maintainable. The said argument is not convincing. The bare provision of law as referred to above, do not support his cause and the reliance if any could also be placed on the judgment delivered in case Sadashiv Hirwe v. Trimbak Chitnis, AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 171 wherein it was observed as under : “Agent 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.” While relying upon Sadashiv Hirwe's case (supra) this Court in case Jugal Kishore and others vs. Bhagwan Dass and others 1989 (1) P.L.R. 530 : 1990 AIR (Punjab) 82 : 1990 (2) R.R.R. 26 : 1990 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 28 observed as under :- “According to the said provisions, the tenant could not sue his landlord for the purposes of compelling them to inter-plead with any persons other than persons making claim through such principals or landlords. Admittedly, in he present case defendants No.4 to 19 are not claiming through the landlord defendant Nos. 1 to 3. They claim themselves to be owners of the shop in dispute and have denied the rights of defendants No.1 to 3. In these circumstances, the said provisions of Order 35 Rule 5 CPC, were clearly attracted and the tenants here could not maintain the suit against the landlords i.e. defendants No.1 to 3 compelling them to interplead with defendants Nos. 4 to 19. In Yeshwant Bhikaji's case (supra), it was held that “a tenant is not permitted to deny his lessor's title at the commencement of the tenancy, and therefore, in Civil Revision No. 5220 of 2009 -4- *** order that an inter-pleader suit may lie, the claim of the party other than the landlord must be consistent with the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy in question.” Similar observations were made in cases Smt. Mohani Devi vs. Gokal Chand and another 1991 (1) P.L.R. 181 : 1991 (1) R.R.R. 405 : 1991 (1) Cur. L. J. 61, and Raj Kumari alias Raj Rani vs. Surjit Singh alias Bilu and others 1998 (1) Cur. L. J. 515. As such, the trial court appears to have appreciated the legal proposition in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. March 08, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge