1989 Supreme(Raj) 902
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
D.L.Mehta, J.
Mahfooz Beg - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Khaleeza Begum - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 729 of 1988.
Decided On : 6-11-1989
The title and the relationship of landlord and tenant stand on different footings, and the title cannot be equated with the right of a landlord.
Headnote:
Landlord-Tenant - Suit for Recovery of Rent and Ejectment - Interpretation of Title and Relationship of Landlord and Tenant
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, was facing a suit for the recovery of rent and ejectment on the grounds of default and bonafide need. The petitioner argued that the suit had been previously instituted by another party, and the question of title was not involved in the current case.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the revision petition, stating that the earlier suit for declaration and subsequent suit for possession should not be allowed to proceed simultaneously. The court also suggested the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Order 35 and file an inter pleader suit to resolve the issue of landlord-tenant relationship.
Issues: Interpretation of title and relationship of landlord and tenant, applicability of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the cause of action for title and the relationship of landlord and tenant stand on different footings, and the title cannot be equated with the right of a landlord. The court also held that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied in the present case.
Final Decision: The revision petition was rejected with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard and perused this order dated 10-8-1988. The petitioner is a tenant.
2. Plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of rent and ejectment also on the ground of default and bonafide need etc. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Khaliza Begum, treats herself as a landlord. Similarly, Amalgamated Yatim Khana Moinia Islamia, treats itself as a landlord. A case of the petitioner is that the suit has been instituted earlier by Amalgamated Yatimkhana against Smt. Khaliza Begum, in which the petitioner is also a party. It was submitted by the Amalgamated Yatimkhana, that the waqf has been created by Mst. Unuisa, in her favour.
3. The suit based on title and on the relationship of landlord and tenant stands on different footings. The cause of action will be different a mortgagee and sometimes trespasser can be a landlord though he may not be owner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Mana v. Dalil, AIR 1979 P&H 39 . in which Their Lordships have held that the earlier suit for declaration and subsequent suit for possession Under Section 5, should not be allowed to proceed simultaneously. The position in this case is altogether different and the question of title is not involved in it. Apart from that the title cannot be equated with the right of a landlord. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the case cited by Mr. Karnani, does not apply. The petitioner if he feels any difficulty in the payment of rent he can invoke the provisions of Order 35, and can file a inter pleader suit and can make a submission in the same that Khalida Begum and Amalgamated Yatimkhana are treating themselves as landlord and she should admit that she is a tenant and she should deposite the rent and the court will decide who is the landlord. How ever, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, cannot be applied.
4. In the result, I do not find any force in this revision petition and the same is rejected.No order as to costs.Revision Rejected.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
