1. - The facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed an interpleader suit against the respondents alleging therein that their father obtained one shop on rent for Rs. 22/- per month from Daulat Ram Agarwal, the husband of the respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the shop was sold by Daulat Ram to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and as per his instructions, rent was paid to them. The respondent No. 1 sent a notice that rent may not be paid to Daulat Ram because she has cancelled the power of attorney which she had granted to him. When Daulat Ram was asked about it, he asserted that he was the owner of the shop and the respondent No. 1 has no concern with it. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed suit for recovery of rent against the father of the plaintiffs which was decreed. The respondent No. 1 also filed suit for eviction on the ground of default. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed another suit on the ground of default. Under the aforesaid circumstances, uncertainty and confusion was created. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit stating that they have no interest in the subject matter of the suit and there was no collusion between them and the defendants. They were ready to pay the rent to any defendant who will be declared entitled to it by the Court. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted written statements alleging that after purchase of the property by a registered sale deed dated 03.04.1965, they have become owners and rent was paid to them by the father of the plaintiffs. The respondent No. 1 did not file a written statement but submitted an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Order 35, Rule 5 CPC alleging that under the provisions of Order 35, Rule 5 CPC, a tenant has no right to file interpleader suit. It was also contended that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and as such, it is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court accepted the application of the respondent No. 1 and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2001. The appellants and the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 filed an appeal against the said judgment which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.2009. The appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgments and decrees by filing this second appeal.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties carefully and at length.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the courts below have illegally dismissed the suit which was filed by the plaintiffs as interpleader suit is not barred when two persons are claiming themselves as landlords. In the circumstances, substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the suit is barred in view of the provisions of Section 88 and Order 35, Rule 5 CPC and liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Moreover, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted an application before the learned First Appellate Court stating that they are not landlords of the appellant in respect of the disputed shop and that it is the respondent No. 1 who is the landlord of the appellants in respect of suit shop.

5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and gone through the records of both courts below. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have claimed ownership of the shop on the basis of adverse possession in the written statement submitted by them in Suit No. 250/81 and thus, they claim interest in the suit shop. It has also been held that a perusal of Paras 6 and 7 of the plaint shows that they are in collusion with the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. However, without expressing any opinion on the aforesaid aspects, I feel that in view of the application submitted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the learned F