JAGJIT SINGH Vs. P K DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petitions raises an important question of law concerning the right of a tenant to institute an interpleader suit against two or more persons who are disputing between themselves the question as to who is the landlord of the premises.

(2.) The petitioner before me is Jagjit Singh, one of the persons claiming to be the landlord of Shri P.K. Dutt, the plaintiff in the suit. One of the persons is Gurbux Singh an advocate from Jullundur. It appears that the present petitioner had instituted proceedings against P.K. Dutt before the Rent Controller where a statement was made by all these three persons that they mutually agreed that the decision in the present inter-pleader suit would be binding on them. An order in this behalf was passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The petitioner alleges that no such statement was made before that authority, but I am not in a position to accept this as being correct in view of the order actually passed in that case. The objection as to the maintainability to inter-pleader suit was raised before the trial court and rejected per orders dated 19th October, 1972. It,was held that the suit was maintainable, particularly in view of the statement made before the Additional Rent Controller. However, the objection of the petitioner that an inter-pleader suit could not be instituted by a tenant against his landlord requiring him to inter-plead with another person, was not properly discussed in the order and, hence I find that the order sought to be revised has not really dealt with the legal position raised.

(3.) Mr. D.N. Nijhawan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the objection he has taken to the maintainability of the suit is an attack on the jurisdiction of the Court. He states that this jurisdiction is not dependent on any statement that might have been made before the Additional Rent Controller and he is not at all estopped from raising the question of maintainability, as that maintainability is dependent on the express provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. I would have dismissed this Revision Petition on the ground of estoppel, but I am satisfied that whatever the law may be, a Civil Court cannot get jurisdiction merely because the parties have agreed before the Additional Rent Controller that a decision given in the inter-pleader suit would be binding upon them. If the inter-pleader suit is not maintainable obviously that statement will become wholly ineffective. It is, therefore, necessary now to deal with the main question before me, which is as to whether an inter-pleader civil suit like the present can be filed by a tenant in which he seeks to have the identity of his landlord determined. The normal rule enacted in Order 35, Rule 5 of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure is that no landlord can be compelled by the tenant to inter-plead with a person other than a person who claims through him. In other words, if there is a contest between two persons as to which of them is the landlord, it is not for the tenant to compel them to inter-plead inter se, The main question, therefore is, as to whether the persons claiming to be landlords are claiming through each other or not. If these persons are adverse to each other, then obviously the suit does not lie.