G. K. Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is a very peculiar case in which Shyam Manohar Gupta, petitioner has challenged the order of the Addl. District Judge, No. 2 Jaipur City dt. 5-2-86 by which, the,order of the learned Munsif was affirmed and the rent was determined to be deposited in the Court.
(2.) TWO suits are pending with regard to one premises D-147/a situated in Bani Park, Jaipur. This property belongs to Har Sharan Lal Saxena who has now expired. Har sharan Lal filed a suit against the petitioner on the ground of default for rent and ejectment on 6-9-80. In that suit the Court determined the rent on 30-1-81. Thereafter, Harsharan Lal expired on 22-11-81 and Vasudeo Charan was brought on record as legal representative on 4-10-82, Mr. P. R. Sharma stated that Vasudeo was brought on record after making as L. R. of Harsharan Lal but without any notice to Smt. Mithilesh Kumari widow of Harsharan Lal and Rajesh Sharan who is in possession of a will executed in his favour by Harsharan Lal. So Vasudeo was brought on record simply on the application of Vasudeo. . Mr. Goyal stated that Vasudeo has also a will in his favour executed by Harsharan Lal and on the basis of that will he became the L. R. Whatever may be the position about the will it will be decided when the suit will be disposed of. But, at present the position that Vasudeo on the basis of the will became the L. R. of Harsharan Lal, which is challenged by Mithilesh Kumari and Rajesh Sharan. After determing the rent by the Court on 30-1-81 the petitioner paid the determined amount in the Court upto Nov. 81. Thereafter it is admitted fact that from Dec. 81 to August 83 the rent was paid by the petitioner to Mithilesh Kumari after taking regular receipts. Thereafter, as stated on behalf of the petitioner that some dispute took place between Mithilesh Kumari and Vasudeo and, therefore the petitioner did not pay any rent to Mithilesh Kumari. Then, Mithilesh Kumari and Rajesh Sharan filed another suit with regard to the same property for rent and on the ground of default and not paying the rent from 1-9-83 to 29-2-84 prayed for ejectment also. After filing this second suit an application was moved for consolidating the previous suit No. 315/80 (Vasudeo vs. Shyam Manohar Gupta) and the present suit No.-214/84 (Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and Rajesh Sharan vs. Shyam Manohar Gupta and the Court consolidated both the suits vide its order dt. 3-7-85. Thereafter, in the second suit Mithilesh Kumari and others submit-ted an application for determing the rent and on 29-1-85 the Court determined the rent. Against this order an appeal was preferred and the Addl. District. Judge vide order dt. 5-2-86 confirmed the order of the learned Munsif. This order has been challenged in this revision petition. The peculiar circumstances is that with regard to one property two suits are pending. In one suit Vasudeo is plaintiff and in subsequent suit Mithilesh Kumari and Rajesh Sharan are the plaintiffs. From the receipts it appears that from 8-1-82 onward upto August, 83 the rent was paid to Smt. Mithilesh Kumari inspite of the fact that previous suit filed by her husband was pending in which Vasudeo has been impleaded as plaintiff in place of Harsharan Lal. Upto August. '88 no application was moved by Vasudeo in the previous suit stating that monthly rent is not being paid to him because the fact was that the rent was being paid to Mithilesh Kumari which he had accepted and that was the reason that he did not move any application for not depositing the rent or not paying the rent to him by the petitioner. So this is possible that some dispute had taken place in September, '83 and December, '84 between Mithilesh Kumari and Vasudeo and the petitioner discontinued paying the rent from September,'83 onward till the second suit was filed by Smt. Mithilesh Kumari. This made Mithilesh Kumari to file the second suit and the rent was again determined by the Court on 29-1-85. Thereafter, both the suits were consolidated. The determined rent vide order dt. 29-1-85 has not been deposited because according to, the petitioner the rent was payable to Vasudeo in compliance to previous order determining the rent on 30th January, '81. . If the petitioner is again asked to pay the determined rent as ordered on 29-1-85 means he will have to pay the rent twice to the non-petitioners Rajesh Sharan and Mithilesh Kumari who now dead. The entire case depends on this fact whether Shyam Manohar Gupta is the tenant of Vasudeo or he is tenant of Rajesh Sharan because Mithilesh Kumari, the plaintiff in the second suit, has expired now. This case was remanded to the lower Court for determing as who is the legal representative of Mithilesh Kumari and the finding of the lower Court has arrived here which is dt. 14-30-87. The trial Court was of the opinion that there is no legal representative of Mithilesh Kumari, therefore, the name of Mithilesh Kumari be deleted from the suit as plaintiff and the suit will continue by Rajash Sharan as plaintiff because Rajesh Sharan and Vasudeo claim to be the Landlord on the basis of two separate wills. Mr. Sharma stated that the will as alleged by Vasudeo is an unregistered will which is not on the record while the will in favour of Rajesh Sharan is a registered will which is on the record. So when the suits will be decided because both the suits have been consolidated the finding would be in either favour of Vasudeo or in favour of Rajesh Sharan and the person who will be treated as Landlord of Shyam Manohar Gupta, the petitioner will pay the rent and he will get the benefit of decree if passed in his favour. But, at present it is directed that from today onward the monthly rent be deposited in the Court and neither Vasudeo nor Rajesh Sharan will:be entitled to withdraw the amount of rent till the disposal of the suit and who will be entitled to get this rent depends on the decision of the suit. With this observation, the revision petition is disposed of No. order as to costs. . ;