KISHAN SINGH Vs. KEWALRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision application arises out of certain proceedings taken under sec. 19 A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "act". Though the amount of rent which is the subject matter of the dispute is only Rs. 8/-, the case had a number of inning in this Court as well as in the court of the Additional District Judge.

(2.) ONE Veerbhan Singh is admittedly the tenant of. the suit premises which formed part of a building known as 'girdhari Singh-Ka-Nohra' situated neat Mahatma Gandhi High School, Jodhpur. He was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 8/-for the premises. Veerbhan Singh made an application under sec. 19a of the Act in the court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur on 2-12-65. In that application he stated that he had a bona fide doubt as to the person to whom rent was payable by him. He named three persons as the claimants who were demanding rent from him. According to him, one of these persons was entitled to the rent of the permises. It may be mentioned that of the three persons Kewalraj was the chief trustee of the Oswal Singh Sabha and Mohanraj was his Mukhtiar-e-Aam. Thus, there were only two rival claimants Smt. Bhagmati Devi, on the one hand, and Kewalraj and Mohanraj, on the other. The learned Munsif gave notices to these claimants and he also affixed a notice on the notice board of the Court. Thereafter Kishan Singh, the present petitioner moved an application asserting that he was the person entitled to receive the rent from the tenant and he, therefore, prayed for being made a party to the proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Munsiff impleaded Kishan Singh also as a party. On 20-1 67, Veerbhan Singh, the tenant, filed an application before the learned Munsif stating therein that Kewalraj was the landlord and his doubt about the real landlord had been removed. He, therefore, prayed that the rent deposited by him may be paid to Kewalraj. Kewalraj too filed an application praying that the rent deposited in court may be paid to him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invited attention to sec. 19c. He argued that the withdrawal of the rent deposited under sec. 19a shall not operate as an admission against the person concerned of the correctness of the rent, the period of default, the amount due or of any other facts stated in the tenant's application for depositing the rent under sec. 19a. I may read sec. 19g. "s. 19-C. Saving as to expenses of rent and forfeiture of rent in deposit - (1) The withdrawal of rent deposited under sec. 19-A in the manner provided therein shall not operate as an admission against the person withdrawing it of the correctness of the rent, the period of default, the amount due, or of any other facts stated in the tenant's application for depositing the rent under the said section. (2) Any rent in deposit which is not withdrawn by the landlord or by the persons entitled to receive such rent shall be forfeited to Government by an order made by the court, if it is not withdrawn before the expiration of three years from the date of posting of the of deposit. (3) Before passing an order of forfeiture the court shall give notice to the landlord or the person or persons entitled to receive the rent in deposit by registered post acknowledgement due at the last known address of such landlord or person or persons and shall also publish the notice on the notice board of the court and if the amount of rent exceeds one hundred rupees shall also publish it in any local newspaper. "