Kailash Chandra Gupta v. Zafar Ahmad — 1964 DIGILAW 219 (ALL)

JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is an application in revision under Section 115, C.P.C. on behalf of the Agarwala Pathshala Intermediate College, Moradabad, to challenge the order dated 24.8.1960 of the Munsif, Moradabad, holding that the amount deposited by the tenant was payable to Zafar Ahmad, opposite-party No. 1, and he could withdraw the amount as prayed for by him. 2. As the revision is being allowed on a question of law, it is not necessary to reproduce in this order the past history and the litigation between the parties. It may simply be mentioned that Zafar Ahmad is claiming to be the owner of the house in dispute on the basis of an oral gift alleged to have been made by Nawab Nooruddin Ahmad Khan, deceased. Smt. Sultana Begum, opposite-party No. 2, is the daughter of Nawab Nooruddin Ahmad and she is the wife of Zafar Ahmad, but the two do not appear to be pulling on well together. Mufti Tanvir Husain, opposite-party No. 3, is another heir of Nawab Nooruddin Ahmad Khan. The Agarwala Pathshala Intermediate College, applicant, claims to have purchased the house in an auction sale held in execution of a decree obtained by one Madho Saran against Nawab Nooruddin Ahmad Khan. Rameshwar Saran was at one time the Secretary of the college. He has now been succeeded by Kailash Chandra Gupta. The applicant's name as now substituted is thus Kailash Chandra Gupta. When the name of Rameshwar Saran was deleted from the array of the applicant, he was transposed as opposite-party No. 4 on the ground that he was occupying the house as a tenant and had deposited the amount of rent in the court of the Munsif under Section 7-C of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act). 3. Rameshwar Saran occupied the house as a tenant under an allotment order passed under the provisions of the above Act. As there existed a dispute as to the ownership of the house, Rameshwar Saran deposited the rent under his application dated 5.11.1963 under Section 7-C of the Act. In the application he made it clear that the College had since become the owner of the house, but as litigation was pending and there existed dispute, the rent was being deposited in Court. 4. Zafar Ahmad alone moved an application for permission to withdraw the amount. In the application he made it clear that the College had since become the owner of the house, but as litigation was pending and there existed dispute, the rent was being deposited in Court. 4. Zafar Ahmad alone moved an application for permission to withdraw the amount. The application was opposed by the College and also by Smt. Sultana Begum, though unsuccessfully. Only the college has come up in revision against that order. 5. The impugned order is challenged not only on merits, but also on the ground that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass the order. Section 7-C of the Act runs as below:- "7-C (1) When a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant in respect of any accommodation the tenant may in the prescribed manner deposit such rent and continue to deposit any subsequent rent which becomes due in respect of such accommodation unless the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept. (2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-Section (1) in respect of any accommodation, the tenant may similarly deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent Court, or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit, in like manner, the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building. (3) The deposit referred to in sub-Section (1) or (2) shall be made in the Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. (4) On any deposit being made under Sub-Section (1) the Court shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in this behalf. (5) When a deposit has been made under sub-Section (2) the amount of the deposit shall be held by the Court for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and the same shall be payable to such person. (5) When a deposit has been made under sub-Section (2) the amount of the deposit shall be held by the Court for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and the same shall be payable to such person. (6) In any case where a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord." A perusal of this section shall make it clear that a tenant can deposit rent in the court of the Munsif having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate, in two circumstances only. One of the circumstances is the one detailed in sub-Section (1), namely that the landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him in respect of the accommodation. This sub-section applies when it is known who the landlord is that is, to whom the rent is payable. The rent payable to the landlord can be deposited in Court, month after month, till the landlord signifies by notice in writing his willingness to accept rent. The other class of cases in which rent can be deposited in the Court of the Munsif is detailed in Sub-Section (2), that is, where any bona-fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-Section (1) in respect of the accommodation. In such a case, the tenant can deposit the rent in Court and go on depositing such rent, until such doubt has been removed such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent court or by a settlement between the parties. 6. With regard to the first category, that is, cases falling within sub-Section (1), the legislature made a provision in sub-Section (4) for giving notice of the deposit to the landlord; but no such provision has been made for any rent deposited under sub-Section (2). Sub-Section (4) provides that on any deposit being made under sub-Section (1) the Court shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by the landlord on an application made by him to the Court in this behalf. But with regard to rents deposited under sub-Section (2), the legislature laid stress upon the rent being held by the Court. But with regard to rents deposited under sub-Section (2), the legislature laid stress upon the rent being held by the Court. It is provided in sub-Section (5) that where a deposit has been made under Sub-Section (2), the amount of the deposit shall be held by the Court. It was then clarified that the Court shall hold the rent so deposited for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and the amount so deposited shall be payable to such person. When the legislature laid down the mode of disbursement in sub-Section (4), but not in sub-Section (5), the Court of law shall have to hold that the legislature had in mind that the disputes of ownership be not decided by the Munsif in whose Court the rent had been deposited. If such were not the intention of the legislature, it would have been provided that on deposit being made, the court shall cause a notice to be served on all the rival claimants and then determine for purposes of the Act who the landlord is. 7. While making a provision in Section 5 of the above Act for the determination of rent, it was made clear that an application for fixation of rent under sub-Section (4) thereof shall lie in the Court of the Munsif having territorial Jurisdiction, if the annual rent claimed or payable was Rs. 500/- or less, otherwise in the Court of the Civil Judge having territorial Jurisdiction. The legislature was aware of the fact that Munsifs were much less experienced than Civil Judges and cases of a higher valuation must be decided by the Civil Judges and cases of a higher valuation must be decided by the Civil Judge, and not by the Munsif. Even then it was provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 7-C that the deposits referred to in sub-Section (1) or (2) shall be made in the Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. 8. Where it is not in dispute as to who the landlord is, there is in effect no matter in controversy. The tenant deposits the rent in the Munsif's court and that amount can be withdrawn by the landlord. Consequently, the Munsif, howsoever inexperienced or junior he may be, can order the repayment of the money to the landlord on an application being made. The tenant deposits the rent in the Munsif's court and that amount can be withdrawn by the landlord. Consequently, the Munsif, howsoever inexperienced or junior he may be, can order the repayment of the money to the landlord on an application being made. But where there exists a dispute as to the title to the house, it will be unfair to leave it at the discretion of the Munsif, irrespective of the valuation of the property, even though in a regular suit the Munisif would not have the jurisdiction to try that suit. It appears to me that the legislature made a different provision in sub-Section (5) in view of the fact that the Munsif in whose Court, the rent is deposited, may not ordinarily be competent to decide questions of the title with respect to houses, all the more the valuation of which was above Rs. 5,000/-. 9. The wording of sub-section (2) of Section 7-C also leads to the same inference. The sub-Section gives power to the tenant to go on depositing rent in the Court of the Munsif till the dispute has been settled by the decision of a competent court or by settlement between the parties. Any decision of the Munsif on title in a proceeding under Section 7-C shall not be a decision of a competent court. The result shall be that in spite of the order passed on the application for withdrawal of rent already deposited the tenant shall have to deposit the future rent in the Court of the Munsif; and if the same Munsif or his successor takes a different view, the rent shall be payable to one person at one occasion and to a different person at the other. There shall come into existence two conflicting orders of the Munsif though passed in two distinct proceedings under Section 7-C. The legislature could never have thought of creating a confusion and, in the circumstances we can give the ordinary meaning to the words used in sub-Section (5) of Section 7-C. 10. It was, on the other hand, contended on behalf of opposite-party No. 1 that the amount deposited in the Court of the Munsif was payable to the person entitled, and who was entitled to the money, shall be determined by the Munsif, and not postponed for decision by a competent court. It was, on the other hand, contended on behalf of opposite-party No. 1 that the amount deposited in the Court of the Munsif was payable to the person entitled, and who was entitled to the money, shall be determined by the Munsif, and not postponed for decision by a competent court. As sub-Section (5) of Section 7-C of the Act lays stress upon the holding of the deposit by the Court, this contention can have no force. The court always holds the money for the rightful owner; and this point has been clarified by the legislature by providing that the money was being held for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and that the same shall be payable to such person. 11. On a careful consideration of the provisions of Section 7-C of the Act, I am of opinions that an amount deposited under sub-Section (2) of Section 7-C is to remain in deposit till the dispute between the rival claimants had been settled by the decision of any competent court or by a settlement between the parties, and that the Munsif in whose Court, the rent was so deposited was not competent to adjudicate upon the claims of the rival claimants to the house in question. In the instant case, the Munsif determined the question of ownership and exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested in him. 12. The revision is hereby allowed and the application of Zafar Ahmad for the withdrawal of the money deposited by Rameshwar Saran is dismissed. Costs on parties.