Judgment:
Mohini Kapoor, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2-8-1686 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur directing the appellant to deposit rent month by month by 15th day of the next month. The defendant appellant is aggrieved by this order as according to him he is depositing the rent of the premises in which he is a tenant Under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, as there is a bonafide dispute as to who is the landlord, and who is entitled to receive the rent.
2. The appellant was taken in as a tenant in the disputed property premises) in the year 1972. In the year 1980, he started depositing the rent in Court under Section 19A of the Act as there was a dispute as to whether the respondent was the landlord or one Chiranji Lal Patni was the landlord. At the same time Income Tax Department was also claiming the rent on account of the tax dues of Chiranji Lal Patni. In the proceeding under Section 19A of the Act, the Court ordered on 24-8-1984, that there was a dispute as who was to the landlord but no order could be passed on this dispute unless some one applied for the withdrawal of the rent deposited in the Court. It was also observed that civil suit was pending between the parties and in that case who so ever is determined to be the landlord would be entitled to receive the rent. In view of this the file was consigned to record. In December, 1982, the present respondent filed a suit for rent and eviction against the appellant and one of the grounds for eviction is as provided in Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. After the filing of the written statement the respondent applied for the determination of the rent and the same was determined on 13-3-1986, and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of about Rs. 51,000/-. The appellant preferred an appeal, which came to be decided by me on 19th May, 1986. The matter was sent back to the trial court to decide the application under Section 13(2) of the Act afresh after taking into consideration the material which was placed on record. The matter which the trial court had not considered was the deposit of rent by the appellant under Section 19A of the Act.
3. After this decision of this Court, the trial court has again determined the rent payable under Section 13(3) of the Act, by the impugned order. Taking into consideration the amount which had been deposited under Section 19A of the Act, the Court has held that no amount of rent was in arrears and nothing was to be determined but it ordered that in future the appellant shall deposit rent month by month. It is this part of the order, by which the appellant has been directed to deposit rent month by month that the appellant has objection.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that there is a dispute as to who is the landlord of the premises, who can be said to be the person entitled to recover the rent and till such time as this dispute is decided the rent should be continued to be deposited under Section 19A of the Act and not under Section 13(3) or 13(4) of the Act, which would be in the suit of one of the persons claiming to be the landlord. According to him a suit has been instituted against him by Chiranji Lal Patni also and unless it is determined as to who is the person entitled to recover rent, he should not be directed to deposit rent in one of the suits. According to him litigation is pending between the respondent and Chiranji Lal Patni regarding the ownership of the disputed property and during the pendency of these disputes the appellant should not be directed to deposit rent month by month in Court.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that in the earlier appeal decided by this Court, a direction has been given to adjust the amount, which has been deposited under Section 19A of the Act and the Court below has accordingly adjusted this amount and has passed an order regarding future rent only which does not require any interference. He has also brought to my notice that the two suits, which were pending between Chiranji Lal Patni and the present respondent were consolidated by order dated 8th September. 1980, passed by this Court and thereafter the suit of Chiranji Lal Patni has been dismissed, against which S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 21/1982 is pending before this Court. His contention is that the suit of Chiranji Lal has been dismissed so he cannot be considered to be the landlord entitled to recover rent and it is the respondent who is entitled to it. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondent that the rent deposited under Section 19A of the Act has been withdrawn by him but he has not been able to substantiate this by any document or order of the Court.
6. Whatever the position, it cannot be denied that the appellant is only a tenant in the property and he admits His liability to pay rent. No doubt it is his desire to pay the rent to the person who is actual landlord and entitled to recover the rent and does not want to pay to the person who may not be the landlord. His interest is limited to the extent that he is not made liable to pay rent to two persons and defaulter in the payment of rent When he first preferred the appeal before this Court which was decided on 19th May, 1986, he did not contest his liability to deposit the rent but his only grievance was that the amount which had already been deposited under Section 19-A of the Act. had not been taken into consideration and adjusted towards the amount which was determined as payable. Section 19-A (4) says that for the purpose of Section 13(1) a), a tenant shall be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of any rent due from him, if he has paid, remitted or deposited the amount of rent by any of the methods specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A. Thus the deposit made by this method is to be taken into consideration in a suit under Section 13(1)(a) while determining the rent payable under Section 13(3). for the purpose of applicability of Section 13(3), the only condition necessary is that the suit for eviction should be on the ground set-forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any of the grounds. In the present case, this condition stands fulfilled and the provisions of Section 13(3) and 13(4) become applicable and the Court can proceed to make an order in it. The court below has proceeded in accordance with the provisions which are applicable to the suit and it cannot be said that the order passed is illegal or incorrect so as to require any interference.
7. The only apprehension of the appellant, which can be said to have some substance is that he may be directed to deposit the rent in the suit instituted by Chiranjilal Patni against him. In that case, he will have to obtain suitable orders either for the consolidation of the suits or any other relief, which can be said to be available to him by getting the deposit in one case to be treated as deposit in another case. This situation will have to be met when it arises. Ultimately it will be for the two landlords to get their disputes resolved by a competent court and the tenant does not come in the picture for the determination of that dispute. The tenant has to pay rent as directed and his objection to do so does not deserve to be accepted.
8. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.