R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is Civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 15.3.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court dated 23.2.1998 vide which the rent proceedings titled Vijay Kumar Sood v. Union Bank of India and Varinder Kumar Sood v. Union Bank of India were stayed.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Union Bank of India is a tenant of the demised premises. Varinder Kumar Sood claims himself to be the landlord of the demised premises and he filed an ejectment petition against the bank seeking ejectment of the Bank from the demised premises on the grounds of non-payment of rent etc. The bank in response of the notice issued to it appeared before the Rent Controller and did not tender the rent. Vijay Kumar is the other brother of Varinder Kumar Sood and he also filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and sought the ejectment of the bank on the ground of non-payment of rent. The bank appeared before the Rent Controller and did not pay the rent on the plea that the rent has already been deposited with the income-tax authorities. Since there are rival landlords i.e. Varinder Kumar Sood and Vijay Kumar, the bank filed a suit under Section 88 read with Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure and during the pendency of the suit the bank also made a prayer that till the rights of Varinder Kumar Sood and Vijay Kumar are adjudicated finally by the competent Court of jurisdiction, the proceedings of the rent petitions may be stayed. This application was contested by Varinder Kumar Sood mainly on the ground that since a right has accrued to him against the bank with the non-payment of arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, therefore, the application of the bank is not legally maintainable, the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.2.1998 allowed the application for the following reasons :- "I have heard rival contentions and have perused the contents of the application and reply thereof, I find merits in the contention of the learned counsel Sh. H.N. Mehsampuri for applicant as respondents No. 1 and 2 Varinder Kumar Sood and Vijay Kumar Sood have both filed their separate rent petitions for recovering the rent from the plaintiff bank and it is difficult at this juncture for the plaintiff bank to tender the rent to a particular person as both are claiming to be the landlords. Moreover this is an admitted fact that the original agreement with the plaintiff bank was executed jointly by both the defendants. Now the simple question is, can the bank give the rent to one person and ignore the other till the decision as to who is entitled to receive the same ? The answer is simply in negative as the learned counsel for the plaintiff has specifically brought to the notice of the court that the bank is ready to deposit the rent as and when directed to pay the same to the rightful claimant but before adjudicating the matter as to who is entitled. I think it pertinent to stay the rent petition pending in two different courts which have been separately filed by each of the respondents against the bank-plaintiff. The contention of the counsel for defendant are devoid of any merit and I have not the least hesitation in rejecting the same. The application dated 6.2.1997 for staying the proceedings is hereby accepted and proceedings with regard to rent petitions filed by defendant No. 1 Vijay Kumar Sood and Varinder Kumar Sood, defendant No. 2, still stands stayed till the decision of the interpleader suit as to the person who is entitled to receive the same." Not satisfied with the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Patiala, who vide impugned judgment dated 15.3.1999 dismissed the same for the following reasons given in para No. 9 of the same :- "9. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and going through the records, I find that the authority Jugal Kishore v. Bhagwan Dass (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help him. Order 35 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :- "Agents and tenants may not institute intere-pleader suits - Nothing in this order shall be deemed to the enable agents to sue their principals, or tenants to sue their landlords, for the purpose of compelling them to interplead with any person other than persons making claim through such principals or landlords." The bare reading of the said provisions clearly makes out that the tenants cannot sue their landlords for the purpose of compelling them to implead with any person other than persons making the claim through the landlords. It clearly means that this provision applies to those cases where the tenant sues his landlord along with some other person claiming to be the owner of the landlord qua the demised premises. In the reported case, the plaintiff admitted that defendants No. 1 to 3 were their landlords but he filed the suit for inter-pleader between the admitted landlords i.e. defendant No. 1 to 3 and the persons claiming themselves to be the owners who were the defendants No. 4 to 19. In those circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the inter-pleader suit was not maintainable. In the present case the plaintiff has not impleaded any other person other than Vijay Kumar Sood and Varinder Kumar Sood who are his admitted landlords. The question arises as to whether Varinder Kumar Sood or Vijay Kumar Sood could maintain their separate applications under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act claiming the same rent from the plaintiff Bank. The said matter has to be decided by the lower Court after applying its mind to the facts and the evidence led before it. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the lower court exercised its jurisdiction improperly or perversely. If both the landlords are permitted to pursue their rent petitions, in that case the plaintiff Bank is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff bank. There was a prima facie case for the grant of injunction and the order of the lower Court deserves no interference from this Court."
(3.) STILL not satisfied with the judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present revision.;