High Court Rajasthan High Court

Mahfooz Beg vs Smt. Khaleeza Begum on 6 November, 1989

Rajasthan High Court
Mahfooz Beg vs Smt. Khaleeza Begum on 6 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1990 WLN UC 94
Author: D Mehta
Bench: D Mehta


JUDGMENT

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.