P.M. LOKANATH HINDU S/O LATE MUNISWAMY P R NO. 15/1, 1ST CROSS CHOLURPALYA, MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE-23 Vs. P. NARASIMHA MURTHY HINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.