KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. ZAFAR AHMAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under Sec. 115, C.P.C. on behalf of the Agarwala Pathshala Intermediate College, Moradabad, to challenge the order dated 24.8.1960 of the Munsif, Moradabad, holding that the amount deposited by the tenant was payable to Zafar Ahmad, opposite-party No. 1, and he could withdraw the amount as prayed for by him.

(2.) As the revision is being allowed on a question of law, it is not necessary to reproduce in this order the past history and the litigation between the parties. It may simply be mentioned that Zafar Ahmad is claiming to be the owner of the house in dispute on the basis of an oral gift alleged to have been made by Nawab Nooruddin Ahmad Khan, deceased. Smt. Sultana Begum, opposite-party No. 2, is the daughter of Nawab Nooruddin Ahmad and she is the wife of Zafar Ahmad, but the two do not appear to be pulling on well together. Mufti Tanvir Husain, opposite-party No. 3, is another heir of Nawab Nooruddin Ahmad Khan. The Agarwala Pathshala Intermediate College, applicant, claims to have purchased the house in an auction sale held in execution of a decree obtained by one Madho Saran against Nawab Nooruddin Ahmad Khan. Rameshwar Saran was at one time the Secretary of the college. He has now been succeeded by Kailash Chandra Gupta. The applicant's name as now substituted is thus Kailash Chandra Gupta. When the name of Rameshwar Saran was deleted from the array of the applicant, he was transposed as opposite-party No. 4 on the ground that he was occupying the house as a tenant and had deposited the amount of rent in the court of the Munsif under Sec. 7-C of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act).

(3.) Rameshwar Saran occupied the house as a tenant under an allotment order passed under the provisions of the above Act. As there existed a dispute as to the ownership of the house, Rameshwar Saran deposited the rent under his application dated 5.11.1963 under Sec. 7-C of the Act. In the application he made it clear that the College had since become the owner of the house, but as litigation was pending and there existed dispute, the rent was being deposited in Court.