1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that shop in dispute was rented out by late Shri Phool Chand Jain to respondent no.1-Bhajan Lal on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. After the death of original landlord late Shri Phool Chand Jain, the tenant-respondent no.1 Bhajan Lal moved an application before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alwar under section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 to the effect that after the death of late Shri Phool Chand Jain, the non-applicants no. 1 and 2 Shri Adesh Kumar Jain S/o late Shri Phool Chand Jain and Smt. Sumitra Devi, widow of late Shri Phool Chand Jain are claiming themselves as owner of the shop and are demanding monthly rent from him. Similarly, the non-applicant no.4 Smt. Sunita Jain, W/o Shri Adesh Kumar Jain is also claiming herself as owner of the property and is demanding the monthly rent from him. Therefore, he is not aware as to who is competent owner to receive the monthly rent from him and in these circumstances, he has no alternative except to deposit the amount of monthly rent of the shop in dispute in the Court. Therefore, he may be permitted to deposit the amount of monthly rent for the period January and February, 1995 in the Court.

3. The non-applicant no.1 Adesh Kumar Jain filed his written-reply to the application, wherein he contended that property in dispute was of Hindu Undivided Family and he being the Karta of the family after the death of late Shri Phool Chand Jain, he is entitled to receive the monthly rent from the applicant. However, he contended that so far as legal representatives of late Shri Phol Chand Jain are concerned, there are eight legal representatives namely: (i) Smt. Sumitra Devi Jain (wife); (ii) Adesh Kumar Jain, (iii) Pawan Kumar Jain (sons); (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Jain, (v) Smt. Nirmala Jain, (vi) Smt. Beena Jain, (vii) Smt. Mitra Jain and (viii) Smt. Chandan Jain (daughters). Therefore, the application filed by the tenant be dismissed and amount deposited by him be directed to be paid to him.

4. The non-applicants no. 3 and 4 (petitioners herein) filed their written-reply to the application, wherein it was contended by them that late Shri Phool Chand Jain in his life time had already entered into a family settlement and thereafter he executed a registered Will dated 9th July, 1991 in their favour. Thereafter a Supplementary Will dated 14th May, 1993 was also executed in their favour which was got attested on 14th May, 1993 from Notary, Alwar. In these circumstances, they are the owner of the property in dispute and entitled to receive the monthly rent from the applicant.

5. The learned trial court vide its order dated 5th December, 1998 allowed the non-applicants to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant-tenant while reserving their rights.

6. Being aggrieved with the same, the non applicants no. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal, but the first appellate court dismissed the same. Hence they preferred the present writ petition challenging the impugned orders of both the courts below.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per registered Will dated 9th July, 1991 and Supplementary Will dated 14th May, 1993, they are the owners of the property in dispute; and the family settlement in respect of property had already taken place in the life time of late Shri Phool Chand Jain. In these circumstances, the non- applicants no. 1 and 2 (respondents no. 2 and 3 herein) are not entitled to receive the amount of monthly rent from the tenant. It is further contended that from the reply of non-applicants no. 1 and 2, it was clear that there are eight legal representatives of late Shri Phool Chnad Jain, therefore, non applicants no. 1 and 2 alone were not entitled to receive the amount of monthly rent of the property in dispute in any circumstances. Therefore, both the courts below committed an illegality in passing the impugned orders, whereby the non-a