KAN SINGH, J.—The present revision application arises out of certain proceedings taken under sec. 19 A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act". Though the amount of rent which is the subject matter of the dispute is only Rs. 8/-, the case had a number of inning in this Court as well as in the court of the Additional District Judge.

2. One Veerbhan Singh is admittedly the tenant of. the suit premises which formed part of a building known as Girdhari Singh-Ka-Nohra situated neat Mahatma Gandhi High School, Jodhpur. He was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 8/-for the premises. Veerbhan Singh made an application under sec. 19A of the Act in the court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur on 2-12-65. In that application he stated that he had a bona fide doubt as to the person to whom rent was payable by him. He named three persons as the claimants who were demanding rent from him. According to him, one of these persons was entitled to the rent of the permises. It may be mentioned that of the three persons Kewalraj was the chief trustee of the Oswal Singh Sabha and Mohanraj was his Mukhtiar-e-Aam. Thus, there were only two rival claimants Smt. Bhagmati Devi, on the one hand, and Kewalraj and Mohanraj, on the other. The learned Munsif gave notices to these claimants and he also affixed a notice on the notice board of the Court. Thereafter Kishan Singh, the present petitioner moved an application asserting that he was the person entitled to receive the rent from the tenant and he, therefore, prayed for being made a party to the proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Munsiff impleaded Kishan Singh also as a party. On 20-1 67, Veerbhan Singh, the tenant, filed an application before the learned Munsif stating therein that Kewalraj was the landlord and his doubt about the real landlord had been removed. He, therefore, prayed that the rent deposited by him may be paid to Kewalraj. Kewalraj too filed an application praying that the rent deposited in court may be paid to him.

3. During the course of the proceedings that the learned Munsif had started Kewalraj moved two applications on 13-4-68. By one application he requested the learned Munsif to dismiss the tenants application in default, as he had absented himself on an hearing on 13-4-68. By the second application he prayed that the proceedings should be taken to be closed by virtue of Order 23 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, The learned Munsif disposed of the two applications. Order on the one was as follows—

"Parties present.

This application has been pressed by the learned counsel—applicant on the basis that the application of Shri Beerbhan Singh dated 20-1-67 be decided.

I have considered this application as well the application of Beerbhan Singh in this connection.

Firstly, on merits this application filed by Beerbhan Singh as well as the present one—stand decided by this Courts order dated l0-5-68, when the application of the learned counsel dated 13-4-68 was decided by this Court.

Secondly, even otherwise when the applicant of application dated 20-1-67 is not appearing and pressing his application, the present application of this application is no one to tell this court to decide the earlier application first which on merits has already been decided vide order 10-6-68, though not so specifically mentioned.

Thirdly, as has been held by me in my order dated 10-6-68 that this application and this case stand on some exceptional basis and the absence of the person who initiated it after depo siting the money in the Court, would not be good ground for dismissing the case. Similarly a prayer by the person to return the money to the person named by him only after his earlier pra-yer praying the Court to decide to whom the money should be given as there are so man] claimants, cannot be accepted, more so mam claimants appear and put their claim.

In the circumstances and as per this Courts order dated 10-6-68 this application along with the application

Click Here to Read the rest of this document