M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THE property in dispute in a house in Ambala Cantonment Undisputedly it belonged to one Kalu Ram. Kalu Ram before his death is said to have executed a will in favour of his wife Lakshmi Devi Lachhmi Devi is said to have executed a registered will in favour of Om Parkash respondent. He is said to be related to Kalu Ram by being the latter's brother's grandson. On the other hand, figures Muni Devi who claims to have succeeds to Kalu Ram on the demise of Lachhmi Devi both having died interstate. She claims herself to be the niece (sister's daughter) of Kalu Ram. Presently there is a tug of was between Muni Devi and Om Parkash with regard to the ownership and possession of the house by means of a suit in the civil court pending before Shri J.B. Sharma, Additional Senior Sub/Judge. Ambala Cantt.
(2.) THE petitioners obtained the house in dispute from Muni Devi on tenancy vide rent note dated December 19, 1977 Exhibit P-1 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensem plus water tax. Muni Devi on December 13, 1980 filed an ejectment application on three grounds, but what survived was that the tenants were in arrears of rent from April 1, 1980 to December 31, 1980. The tenants inter alia pleaded that they had been duped into the tenancy as Om Parkash respondent had sprung on the to claim ownership of the property and he was even recorded as owner in the municipal papers. The tenants further claimed that for the period in question i.e., from April 1, 1980 to December 31, 1980 they had paid Om Parkash the rent and thus they were (sic) learned Rent Controller, framed an issue as to whether Muni Devi was not the owner of the house and if so, to what effect? The learned Rent Controller did not give any positive finding in that regard but left the parties to get a decision made in the civil court. However, the petitioners were ordered to be ejected on the premises that they had entered into possession of the house as permitted by Muni Devi and thus could not deny her title. The Appellate Authority affirmed that view, which has given rise to the present revision petition. Without meaning to express finally on the merits of the case, it does appear that the tenants were in a predicament as to whom to pay the rent, that is to say, to the landlord from whom the tenancy was obtained or the landlord in whose favour the Cantonment authorities had sanctioned the mutation and charged house tax. Added to this is their tug of war in the civil court to establish the ownership of the property in dispute. This made it all the more difficult for the tenant especially when the words 'landlord' has been defined in the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, to mean any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land as provided to any every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord. It is plain from the definition that a building can at one and the same time have more than one landlord all entitled to receive rent and not necessarily deriving title under each other. The case of the landlord had successfully to be established on the interpretation of section 13(2) (i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1977, on the basis that the tenants have not paid or tendered the rent due from them in respect of the building within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with their landlord in the absence of any much agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. Here it has been interpreted to mean that since the agreement of tenancy was with Muni Devi landlord the rent not only to be paid in terms thereof to Muni Devi and to none other. Now this does not appear to me to be the correct interpretation. Rent undoubtedly has to be paid in terms of the agreement of tenancy but no necessarily to the same landlord with whom the agreement of tenancy was entered into. Thus in these circumstances, the following conditional order is passed : (1) In the event of the Civil suit being decided in favour of Muni Devi respondent No. 1 by the trial Judge declaring her to be the owner of the property in dispute, then the revision petition shall stand dismissed and the petitioners ejected forthwith : (2) In case the Civil Court decides that Om Parkash respondent No. 2 is the owner of the property in dispute, then in that case this revision petition shall stand accepted and the eviction order set aside. (3) Since as interim measure the tenant was directed on November 15, 1985, to deposit future rent with the Rent Controller at the agreed rate as it was with Muni Devi respondent, they are directed to keep on depositing the said rent, may be in advance, from time to time, so that there are no arrears. The claim to the deposited rent shall abide by the result of the Civil Court decision and be claimable by the emergent landowner/landlord from the Rent Controller.
(3.) THE revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Revision petition disposed of accordingly.;