Mahfooz Beg Vs. Smt. Khaleeza Begum - Court Judgment |
| Tenancy |
| Rajasthan High Court |
| Nov-06-1989 |
| S.B. Civil Revision No. 720 of 1986 |
| D.L. Mehta, J. |
| 1990WLN(UC)94 |
| Mahfooz Beg |
| Smt. Khaleeza Begum |
| Petition dismissed |
| Mana v. Dalil
|
rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950 - sections 13(i)(a) & (h) and civil procedure code--section 10 and order 35--inter pleader suit--plaintiff instituted snit for recovery of rent and ejectment--k also treating herself as landlord--held, petitioner may file inter pleader suit and court to decide who is landlord and; (ii) provisions of section 10 cannot be applied;revision rejected - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective..........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.5. no order as to costs.
D.L. Mehta, J.
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, 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.
5. No order as to costs.