AVTAR SINGH Vs. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of aforesaid two revision petitions by this common order since the issues involved are same. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from CR-684-2016.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent No.1 had filed the eviction petition against the respondents No.2 and 3-tenants. During the pendency of that eviction petition the petitioner moved an application for being impleaded as a party. The claim of the petitioner is that he is a coowner of the property and infact a previously instituted civil suit is pending between him and the respondent No. 1 seeking a declaration to this effect. His application for being impleaded as a party was declined. On the other hand the eviction petition filed by respondent No.1 against the respondents No.2 and 3 was allowed in appeal and in further proceedings before this Court mesne profits were ordered to be paid. In the circumstances, as per him, the mesne profits which have been ordered can not be handed over to respondent No.1 and should be kept in a fixed deposit in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2010 AIR(SC) 722 and by this Court in Angoori Devi and others Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama,2016 2 LawHerald(P&H) 1200.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that the judgments cited above were both in the context of the competing claims of tenants and landlord and can not be applied to the competing claims of persons who claimed to be owners, moreso, when the tenants have not moved any such plea.