IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 6.11.2008. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12308/2008 Martin & Haris Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Mehta & Ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri H.L. Tikku, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Suresh Pareek, for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Agarwal, for the respondent. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order datedd 21.10.2008 by which the application (Annexure-5) dated 13.10.2008 filed by the six landlords namely 1) Om Prakash, 2) Anil Mehta, 3)Suresh Kumar, 4) Smt. Kiran Devi 5) Narendra Mehta and 6) Rajiinder Mehta, wherein they have prayed that the rent may be ordered to be deposited in favour of Rajiinder Mehta alone who is one of the applicants and the same be considered to have discharged the liability against all of them. The learned trial court has allowed the aforesaid application and has ordered that the rent be deposited in the name of Rajiinder Mehta alone. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order Annexure-4 had directed that the rent @ Rs.60,000/- p.m. which was determined provisionally by the said order dated 12.11.2007 be deposited in the name of all the six landlords. He relied upon the following passage in the aforesaid order “.....pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit No.61/2002 the appellants tenant shall pay to its landlords (respondents herein) without prejudice to its rights and contentions ad hoc rent @ Rs.60,000/- per month.......” On the basis of the above it was sought to be contended that the rent was required to be deposited in favour of all the six respondents separately after apportioning the same and accordingly the landlords' application that the rent be deposited in the name of Rajiinder Mehta alone could not be allowed as it would be contrary to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have considered the above submissions and order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and I am of the view that the application had which filed by all the respondents landlords Annexure-5 has been signed by all of them giving their consent that the rent paid and deposited in the name of Rajiinder Mehta alone. Even in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court there is no such direction that the rent be deposited in the name of all the six landlords individually. In the light of the above, the tenant petitioner cannot have any grievance that the rent should be deposited in the name of all the six landlords. Also so far the defendant tenant is concerned his sole concern should be of discharging his liability to pay the rent. All Six persons are the landlords and how they decide to accept the rent is their internal matter which the tenant cannot dictate. In this behalf even the definition of landlord as given under Section 3 clause (iii) of the Act of 1950 may also be taken note of. The said definition of 'landlord' reads as follows : “3 (iii) “Landlord” means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant, it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant.” A perusal of the aforesaid definition goes to show that even one of the landlord may be permitted to receive the rent for the benefit of all or any one of them. In the facts and circumstances therefore since all the respondents have given their consent in the application and there being no dispute in between the landlords there was no occasion for the defendant tenant to have raised any objection at all and this petition is vexacious. I find no infirmity having been committed by the learned lower court. Since the petitioner has filed this frivolous and vexacious petition aimed at delaying the proceedings which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 12.11.2007 has directed to decide the suit within nine months as their objections are only aimed at delaying the trial, this writ petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/-. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS