Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) In all these writ petitions there is a common thread binding the case of the parties. The petitioner i.e. the Commissioner of Hazaribag Nagar Parishad is a objector under Order 21, Rule-97, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC in Execution Case Nos.16/1989, 17/1989, 18/1989 and 20/1989 instituted by the respondent No. 1 decree holder in Eviction Suit Nos. 14 of 1986, 03 of 1988, 04 of 1988 and 05 of 1988. Decree and judgment dated 31st March, 1989 rendered by the court of learned Sub Judge-I, Hazaribag. Title Suit No. 52/1983 was an Inter Pleader Suit filed by the tenants i.e. other private respondents herein for a declaration as to which of the two claimants i.e. the landlords are entitled to payment of rent in respect of the suit property. Eviction Suit Nos. 01/1988, 02/1988, 03/1988, 04/1988 and 05/1988 all were preferred by the respondent landlord against their tenants in respect of the properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. All these suits were decided by the common judgment and decree dated 31.03.1989 and decree dated 10th April, 1989 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition No. 567/2015). The relevant documents enclosed to the instant writ petition are being referred to hereinafter also as they are common to all the writ petitions.
(3.) The State of Bihar was also a contesting defendant in the Inter-Pleader Suits. The learned trial court decreed the eviction suit and also held that defendant nos. 4 to 6 in the Inter-Pleader Suit have got valid cause of action to bring their respective suits and they are entitled for payment of rent in respect of respective premises. The decree in the eviction suits in now under execution. The operative part of the judgment are being reproduced hereunder:- 52. These four issues are taken together for consideration for the sake of convenience as regards the cause of action to file T.S. 52/83 the same owes to the averments in para-20 of the plaint wherein it is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 7.7.1979 the date of demand by the Hazaribagh Khas Mahal, on 2.2.1983 the date of demand by the sons of late Sugan Chand Jain second set of defendants. On 23.3.83 the day of notice u/s 80 C.P.C. (page 90th begins) and the date of service thereof i.e. between 25th to 28th and on the expiry of 60 days therefrom and since then is continuing from day to day within the jurisdiction of this court. Obviously, the plaintiff of T.S. 52/83 shall be entitled to file an inter-pleader suit only when they will be put at fix after being exposed to such a situation under which they will be running risk at the cost of their interest unless seeks inter-frame of the court for issuance of direction to relieve the plaintiffs from such a state of stallmate. It has been attributed to the demand by the Hazaribagh Khas Mahal on 7.7.79 what for this demand came on surface by the side of Hazaribagh Khas Mahal and who represented the same has conspicuously been omitted to be mentioned. The omission is not accidental. It is well calculated for there has absolutely been no demand for anything including rent by any officer comprising first set of defendants. As a matter of fact T.S. 52/1983 is a laboured suit filed on manufactured cause of action with the plaintiffs thereof creating circumstances to bring first set of defendants and second set of defendants at logger read with a view to facilitating these (shop keepers) to fish in troubled water at the cost of the purchasers i.e. second set of defendants. This view of mine finds support from further discussion which will make it crystal clear that the plaintiffs of T.S. 52/83 had in fact no occasion to file this inter-pleader suit for they have had got absolutely no cause of action much less the valid cause of action amidst pointed query made by the court to Sri Krishna Kumar learned Advocate appearing for the shop keepers to display the demand notice dated 7.7.79 he could produce none nor could he indicate any documents on record presumably to be so. I would like to make it clear at this juncture that attempt was made to create confusion by inviting the attention of the court towards Ext.3A to 3G to 3/5 attributing the same to be falling in the line of the demand dated 7.7.79 but later on the facts remains that the doubt thus created must be removed and for that end I am constrained to observe that those exts. 3A to 3J appeared to have been issued in connection with an action before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh Khas Mahal section. These documents called upon the shop keepers to appear before (page-91 begins) the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag with their papers relating to the suit properties wherein 29.6.83 is noted which is much subsequent to the last date of alleged cause of action i.e. on the expiry of 60 days from 25th to 28th March, 1983. It comes to be recorded as between 25th to 28th May, 1983 whereas 28.6.83 finds mentioned in all those documents. Those notices on query made by the court were found not to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag on his own accord rather those were issued when the shop keepers invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner after having lost before the Khas Mahal Officer in the matters of settlement of suit stalls in favour of the shop keepers. 53. Now turning to the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the side of the plaintiff of T.S. 52/83 having bearing on this issue they have point blank declined to indicate any such paper. To be more precise P.W.10 in para 2, P.W.12 in para 7, P.W.19 in para 4, P.W.23 in para-11 of their deposition have tried to reflect the proposition that first set of defendants asked for deposit of rental of the shops and stalls with the Khas Mahal but in the cross examination several witnesses from the side of the plaintiff of T.S. 52/83 have contradicted the said contention. P.W.10 in para-17 of his cross examination has stated that till that date (21.3.83) first set of defendants have not brought any action for realisation of rent from them. P.W.11 has like wise stated in para-13 of his cross examination that no notice was issued by Khas Mahal directing them to deposit rent in the treasury or not to pay rent to second set of defendants instead to deposit rent in treasury. P.W.12 in para-15 of his cross examination has categorically stated that first set of defendants never served notice for deposits of rent with them. P.W.17 has like wise stated in para 15 of his cross examination that when ever he paid rent to D.W.9 no body else laid competing claims over the rental. P.W.19 in para 19 of his cross examination categorically stated the first set of defendants have not filed any case for realisation of rental of the shops and stalls they are occupying as tenants. P.W.20 in para-15 of his cross examination has stated that Khas Mahal people asked for rent from him but did not serve any notice upon him. He has further stated that he can not spell out the (page 92 begins) the names of the person asking for rent. P.W.28 in para-24 of his cross examination stated that between 1866 to 1979 he was served with a notice by Khas Mahal that he had been paying rent illegally as the suit property belonged to the Government but in the same stretch he has amended his statements by saying that he does not remember the date of such notices. Even if it is supposed for a while that he does not remember the date of such notice but he could have easily displayed the notice through which he was asked to pay rent to the first set of defendants. But no such document has been filed before the court to lend support to their contention. As the inter-pleader suit has been filed impleading the Government on the one hand and the purchasers on the other it cannot be prudent to imagine any demand without there being any case started by the first set of defendants. Some sort of papers must be with the Government to show that the demand notice for collection of rent was issued to the shop keepers stealing a march over the purchasers. No such papers has been filed and the reason are obvious which may be gathered from the examination of D.W.1 a solitary witness examined by the side of first set of defendants who has categorically stated that for the first time the first set of defendant have been asserting their claim what soever through the instrumentality of instant suit (T.S.52/83) vide para 10 of his deposition. In this view of the matter I am driven to an irresistible conclusion that the plaintiffs of T.S. 52/83 have got absolutely no cause of action to bring this suit and they are not entitled to the relief as claimed in T.S. 52/83. 54. Cause of action accruing to the plaintiff of six eviction suits is owing to default of these six eviction suits to their respective landlord comprising second act of defendant in T.S. 52/83 and plaintiffs of six eviction suits. D.W.9 in para-9 of his deposition, D.W.11 in para 7 of his deposition and D.W.12 in para 3 and 9 of his deposition have stated in substance that in spite of demand made by them from their respective (page 93 begins) tenants for payment of rental they did not favourably respond hence they filed those six suits while appreciating issue No. 8 I have already found and held the tenants in six eviction suits to be defaulter in payment of monthly rent. There is no plea of payment by the side of tenants to their respective land lords. Deposits made by them with the treasury have equally been found to be illegal and invalid as also not in-consonance with the requirements of law hence in my considered opinion the defendants No. 4 to 6 of T.S. 52/83 who are plaintiffs of six eviction suits aforesaid have got valid cause of action to bring their respective suit and they are entitled to the reliefs sought for including decree for arrears of rent Rs. 620/- in case of Eviction Suit No. 14/1986, Rs. 2340/- in case of Eviction Suit No. 1/1988, Rs. 2160/- in case of Eviction Suit No. 2/1988, Rs. 360/- in case of Eviction Suit No. 3/1988, Rs. 720/- in case of Eviction Suit No. 4/1988 and Rs. 525/- in case of Eviction suit No. 5/1988 current and future at the rate stipulated in such suit till khas possession of their respective suit premises is delivered to the plaintiffs land lord by the respective defendants tenants of aforesaid six eviction suits as also decree for eviction. In the result it is hereby ORDERED that T.S. 52/1983 be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost pro rata to the first set of defendants and second set of defendants as well. It is hereby further ORDERED that Eviction Suit No. 14/1986, 1/1988, 2/1988, 3/1988, 4/1988 and 5/1988 be and the same are decreed on contest with cost against the respective defendants. Pleaders fee and Pleader's clerk's fee at contesting scale is also hereby allowed in all the seven suits. Interest pendentilite and future on decreetal amount aforesaid only (excluding the cost of the suit) @ of 5% per annum till realisation is also hereby allowed in all the six eviction suits. All the defendant tenants in six eviction suits are hereby ORDERED to vacate and deliver Khas possession of suit premises in their respective occupation to their respective plaintiff landlord of six Eviction Suits within 90 days of signing of decree else the (page 94th begins) plaintiff landlords of these six Eviction suits shall be at liberty to take Khas possession of the respective suit premises in possession of their respective tenants (defendants) through the process of the court. ;