(1.) THESE appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 20.11.2010 of the trial court whereby the inter -pleader suits filed by the Appellants were dismissed. The trial court has dismissed the suits on two grounds. The first ground is that in terms of Order 35 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), an inter -pleader suit cannot be filed by a tenant against his landlord. The second ground on the basis of which suit has been dismissed is that an inter -pleader suit cannot be collusive in view of Order 35 Rule 1 CPC.
(2.) THE judgment of the trial court is a detailed judgment of 14 pages in which the trial court has narrated the factual controversy between the parties, reproduced the provisions of Order 35 Rule 5 and Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure and also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Jagjit Singh v. P K Dutt reported as, 1973 RLR 723 which holds that the provision of Order 35 Rule 5 will not entitle a tenant to sue his landlord. The facts of the case are that the Appellants claim to be tenants of the subject land on which they have made constructions. The counsel for the Appellants admits that the tenancy is not claimed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 because tenancy is only claimed of the vacant land on which constructions were made by the Appellants/plaintiffs. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Appellants admits that there is no scope for applicability of the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Till the year 1990 the Appellants/plaintiffs paid rent to the predecessor in interest of the Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1. From 1990 -2005 rent was paid by the Appellants to the predecessor in interest of the Respondent No. 2 besides the Respondent No. 2. These suits were filed in the year 2007 on the allegations that two persons are claiming ownership rights as a landlord qua the subject land on which the Appellants/plaintiffs made constructions, and therefore, the Appellants/plaintiffs did not know to whom the rent is payable.
(3.) .....