(1.) THE facts giving rise to this bunch of appeals are that Respondent No. 2 in all the three cases were inducted as tenant in the suit houses. THEy filed three separate applications under Section 25 of the Act stating therein that they were inducted as tenant by one Lala Nemnath and the Respondents 1 -a to 1 -k are the legal heirs of said Lala Nemnath who was entitled to receive rent. However, the Appellant is also claiming that the rent is payable to him as he has received possession of the accommodation by the order of Civil Court and thus they have bona fide doubt as to who is entitled for rent. THE land in question is situated at village Dhamtari bearing khasra No. 816. THE Appellant preferred a civil suit No. 84-A/1985 against Lala Nemnath for declaration, possession and mesne profit which was dismissed by the trial Court. However, in appeal the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.1990 as per annexure A-1. Second appeal preferred by Defendant Lala Nemnath Nanda was also dismissed by the High Court as per annexure A-2. THEreafter, said Lala Nemnath Nanda preferred S.L.P No. (C) No. 6070/1991 before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.4.1991 as per annexure A-3.
(2.) IN execution proceedings symbolic possession of the suit land was delivered to the Appellant. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 25 of the Act stating therein that they had bona fide doubt regarding the present entitlement to receive rent of the suit accommodation as Lala Nemnath Nanda and Jugga Devi, both are claiming the suit land to be their ownership and therefore, permission to deposit the rent in the Court for two months was sought and after ascertaining about me entitlement the same be paid to me claimant entitled and the receipt of such deposit be provided to them. Rent Controlling Authority issued notice to the Appellant and Lala Nemnath Nanda on the above application. They submitted their reply along with the documents in support of their claim. However, the Rent Controlling Authority disposed of the applications preferred by the tenants by recording a finding that the Appellant has been given only the symbolic possession of the suit house in execution of the decree in her favour which does not amount to delivery of actual possession and therefore she cannot be considered to be the owner of the tenanted premises and rather Lala Nemnath Nanda is entitled to receive the rent and accordingly, it was directed that the tenant shall continue to pay rent to said Lala Nemnath Nanda. The appeal preferred by the Appellant has also been dismissed by recording the following findings:
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant submits that delivery of symbolic possession in execution of the decree amounts to actual delivery of possession. He relies upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Gambhira v. Smt. Rajju Raia and Ors. 1987 JLJ 670 and submits that symbolic delivery of possession in execution of decree amounts to delivery of actual possession. It is farther argued that against illegal interference in possession of suit land the Appellant moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was allowed on 23.4.1992. The revision preferred by the judgment debtor Lala Nemnath Nanda was rejected by Additional District Judge Dhamtari as per order of annexure A-4. Respondent No. 1-K namely Ravindra Kumar Nanda filed a suit of annexure A-6 against the Appellant and two others seeking relief of declaration that the decree in favour of the Appellant is in executable. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn with cost with an observation that the Plaintiff cannot institute any other suit under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the same issue. It is further submitted that said Ravindra Kumar Nanda filed yet another civil suit for recovery of rent against the tenant Kanhaiya and Lala Nemnath Nanda which was also dismissed as per order dated 20.11.1999 of annexure A-12J. Since the possession of the suit accommodation has been delivered in execution of decree by Lala Nemnath Nanda, the judgment debtor, the claim of the legal heirs of the judgment debtor to receive the rent amounts to interference with the possession of the Appellant over the suit land in violation of the decree of perpetual injunction. It is further submitted that as per Section 2(b) of the Act the definition of landlord includes every person not being the tenant who from time to time derive title under a landlord and as such Lala Nemnath delivered . the possession of the suit land in execution of the decree and thus the Plaintiff derived the title and therefore she is entitled to receive rent.