MAHAVIR PRASAD Vs. PANCHAYAT SRI DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2. 8. 1986, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur directing the appellant to deposit rent month by month by the 15th day of the next month. The defendant appellant is aggrieved by this order as according to him he is depositing the rent of the premises in which he is a tenant under Section 19 A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, as there is a bonafide dispute as to who is the landlord, and who is entitled to receive the rent.

(2.) THE appellant was taken in as a tenant in the disputed property (premises) in the year 1972. In the year 1980, he started depositing the rent in Court under Sec. 19a of the Act as there was a dispute as to whether the respondent was the landlord or one Chiranjilal Patni was the landlord. At the same time Income-tax Department was also claiming the rent on account of the tax dues of Chiranjilal Patni. In the proceeding under Section 19a of the Act, the Court ordered on 24. 8. 1984 that there was a dispute as who was to the landlord but no order could be passed on this dispute unless some one applied for the withdrawal of the rent deposited in the Court. It was also observed that civil-suit was pending between the parties and in that case whosoever is determined to be the landlord would be entitled to receive the rent. In view of this the file was consigned to record. In December, 1982, the present respondent filed a suit for rent a; d eviction against the appellant and one of the grounds for eviction is as provided in Section 13 (l) (a) of the Act. After the filing of the written statement the respondent applied for the determination of the rent and the same was determined on 13. 3. 1986, and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of about Rs. 51,000/ -. THE appellant preferred an appeal, which came to be decided by me on 19th May, 1986. THE matter was sent back to the trial court to decide the application under Section 13 (2) of the Act afresh after taking into consideration the material which was placed on record. THE matter which the trial court had not considered was the deposit of rent by the appellant under Section 19-A of the Act.

(3.) THE only apprehension of the appellant, which can be said to have some substance is that he may be directed to deposit the rent in the suit instituted by Chiranjilal Patni against him. In that case, he will have to obtain suitable orders either for the consolidation of the suits or any other relief, which can be said to be available to him by getting the deposit in one case to be treated as deposit in another case. This situation will have to be met when it arises. Ultimately it will be for the two landlords to get their disputes resolved by a competent court and the tenant does not come in the picture for the determination of that dispute. THE tenant has to pay rent as directed and his objection to do so does not deserve to be accepted.