SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) SRI A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition that Tikam Singh was the tenant and after his death, his heir has been impleaded in the revision as respondent no.3/1 but the petitioner has not impleaded him as a party in the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent was being paid to the petitioner but for the reasons best known to the respondent-tenant Sri Tikam Singh made an application before the court under Section 30 of Act No. XIII of 1972 permitting him to deposit the rent in court. An objection was made by the petitioner that the petitioner is landlord and there is no dispute, therefore, the rent is to be paid to him. On the objection made by the petitioner, the application under Section 30 of the Act was rejected and no revision was filed by Sri Tikam Singh who was tenant but a revision was filed by a third person claiming himself to be the landlord i.e. respondent no.2 and the revisional court in spite of the objection that the revision itself was not maintainable vide its order dated 8.2.2005 has directed that the tenant will deposit the rent in the Court under Section 30 of the Act and the order dated 10.4.1997 was set aside. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such person has got no right to file a revision and the revision was not maintainable, therefore, directing to deposit the rent in court was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1980 ARC Page 88 Smt. Savitri Devi and others Vs. Prescribed Authority and others. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 30 confers a right only on the tenant to make an application for leave to deposit the rent under the circumstances specified in that section. In case the application is rejected, it is only the tenant who can make the complaint about the dismissal of the application. The third person or the landlord has got no right to agitate the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. In such circumstances, Sri Gupta states that the revision itself was not maintainable and admittedly the petitioner being a landlord, the rent has to be paid to the petitioner by the tenant.
(3.) ON the other hand, Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petiton is liable to be dismissed on the ground only that the tenant has not been impleaded as a party as he was party to the proceeding before the revisional court. Further submission has been made that in a regular civil suit filed by the answering respondent, the answering respondent has been declared to be owner of the property and the first appeal is pending before this Court. A suit before the Judge Small Cause Court by the petitioner has also been filed and in the said suit on the basis of application made by the respondent, the proceeding has been stayed.;