ROSHAN LAL DEVI DASS Vs. MAN MOHAN CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 38 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge dated 18th July, 1963 by which he set aside the judgment of the trial-court and remanded the case to the trial-court.

(2.) The petitioners are the landlords of the building in dispute. A suit tor ejectment was brought by them on the allegation that the respondent was a tenant under them on a monthly rental and that he was liable to be evicted on the ground that he had failed to pay the rent. It was also claimed that the premises were required bona fide for the personal occupation by the landlord. The respondent controverted the allegations. He denied that he was the tenant under the appellant and contended that he was not liable to be evicted on any of the grounds. Along with the written statement, Rs. 1400.00 on account of arrears of rent and costs were deposited in court by the respondent-defendant. Thereafter an application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 23rd of March, 1959 requesting that he be permitted to withdraw this amount. Notice of this application having been given to the respondent, he filed reply dated 18th of April, 1959 in which it was stated that the defendant had denied that the plaintiffs are the landlords and the owners of the premises in question. It was also stated that the amount has been deposited and the plaintiffs are not entitled to realise the amount till it is decided that they are the landlords and the owners of the premises. It was, therefore, prayed that this application for withdrawal of the amount by the plaintiffs be dismissed.

(3.) The trial court, however, by its order dated 27th April, 1959 allowed the application of the plaintiffs to withdraw the amount as it was of the view that the defendant could not prevent the amount from being made over to the plaintiffs, once the same had been deposited in the court by him. The tenant was not satisfied with this order and took the matter in appeal. It is common ground that this appeal of the tenant was also dismissed.