Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1132 (PNJ)

Prem Lata v. Bhupinder Singh

2000-09-19

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 23.10.1998 passed by the court of the learned Rent Controller, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, for the rejection of the plaint. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Bhupinder Singh son of Surjit Singh filed a suit under Order 35, Rule 5, CPC, against Ved Bala, Prem Lata, Sushila Jhanji, Pushal Lata, Kaushalaya Devi, Ram Darshan, Brij Mohan Kapoor, Raj Kumar and Bikram Luthra, on the plea that earlier he was a tenant under Ajudhya Parshad, who was the owner of the property and after his death the dispute has arisen amongst his LRs as to whether who is his real landlord and who is entitled to claim rent from the petitioner. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. An application was filed on behalf of Prem Lata, defendant No. 2 in the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, for the rejection of the plaint and she submitted that earlier two ejectment petitions were filed; one in the month of June, 1995 and the other in the month of May, 1996. In the record of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, defendant No. 2 is co-owner of the property in question and, in these circumstances, she is the landlord of the property in question and, therefore, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, the application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent. Finally, vide the impugned order dated 23.10.1998, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application by holding that the ingredients of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, are not attracted in this case. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 5. Counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-5, the assessment register of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and submitted that in column No. 3, the name of Prem Lata has been recorded as co-owner of the property and being a co-owner, she is the landlord of the property and, therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit under Order 35, Rule 5, CPC. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this High Court reported in Jugal Kishore and others v. Bhagwan Dass and others,. 6. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent submitted by relying upon the rent note that as per this rent note, the property is owned by Ajudhya Parshad, who expired on 30.1.1995 and after his death, a dispute has arisen with regard to the ownership of the property in question and regarding as to who is the real landlord qua the respondent-Bhupinder Singh and, therefore, he has a right to file the suit under Order 35, CPC. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Order 35, Rule 5, CPC lays down that "Nothing in this order shall be deemed to enable agents to sue their principals, or tenants to sue their landlords, for the purpose of compelling them to interplead with any persons other than person making claim through such principals or landlords." 8. The rent note relied upon by the respondent clearly indicates that the privity of contract was between Bhupinder Singh and Ajudhya Parshad. The petitioner Prem Lata has no documentary evidence to show that she inducted Bhupinder Singh as tenant in the demised premises or that Bhupinder Singh had ever atoned (attorned ?) in her favour. The entry of the assessment register, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, is not a document of title and does not, prima facie, create ownership in her. 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 Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is much wider and it has to be understood differently from the concept of ownership. 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 Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is much wider and it has to be understood differently from the concept of ownership. Resultantly, there is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.