- (1.) Labh Singh and Hukam Kaur, respondents No.1 and 2, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the present petitioners from the shop in dispute. Vide the impugned order dated 28.11.2009, the application moved by the petitioners under Order 35 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) for staying the further proceedings in the ejectment petition was dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially Ishar Singh was the owner of the shop in dispute. After his death, the heirs of Ishar Singh had filed ejectment petitions against the tenants. The petitioners had filed an interpleader suit under Order 35 Rule 5 CPC to determine the rights in tenancy premises. Till the decision of the interpleader suit, the proceedings in the ejectment petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 were liable to be stayed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Prem Lata v. Bhupinder Singh,2000 2 RCR 461, wherein, in Para 8, it was held as under: Order 35, Rule 5 CPC clearly spells out that the tenant has a right to file a suit against all those persons who claim their ownership/relationship of landlord or tenant through the landlord. In these circumstances, the suit of the respondent was legally maintainable and he had the cause of action to file the suit. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts in hand. In this case, the suit was instituted against a person who was entitled to receive the rent. In these circumstances, it was observed that such a tenant cannot file a suit against his landlord. It may also be pointed out here that the definition of landlord as given in the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is much wider and it has to be understood differently from the concept of ownership.
(3.) Learned counsel has further placed reliance on Om Parkash Kapoor v. Nirmala Devi and others,1988 PunLR 148 wherein, in Para 7, it was held as under: A plain reading of the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure would show that once the court before which the suit against the plaintiff is pending, is informed of the institution of the inter pleader suit, it is clearly incumbent upon that court to stay the proceedings against such plaintiff. Stay of ejectment proceedings against the petitioner before the rent controller was thus rendered obligatory by the filing of the inter pleader suit by the petitioner- Om Parkash.;