Tenants cannot maintain interpleader suits against landlords under Order XXXV Rule 5 of CPC.

The Appellants (plaintiffs) are tenants of three shops at Station Road, Raigarh, a tenancy originating in 1973 under the late Prakashwati Jagatramka

Following the death of the original owners, multiple parties (Respondents/Defendants 1-5) asserted rival claims of ownership and landlordship, with several initiating separate eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller

Faced with conflicting demands for rent and eviction notices from different parties, the Appellants filed an interpleader suit in the Civil Court seeking a declaration of the lawful landlord and a permanent injunction against interference

Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending the suit was barred by law

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected the plaint, holding the suit maintainable neither under the CPC nor the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011

1. Whether a tenant is legally permitted to institute an interpleader suit against their landlord(s) under Order 35 Rule 5 of the CPC

2. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide landlord-tenant title disputes is barred by Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011

3. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts give rise to any "substantial question of law" warranting interference under Section 100 of the CPC

The Court primarily applied Order 35 Rule 5 of the CPC, which expressly bars agents from suing their principals and tenants from suing their landlords for the purpose of compelling them to interplead

It further relied on Section 6(1) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which mandates the constitution of a Rent Control Tribunal to adjudicate disputes regarding rent and tenancy issues, including the rights, title, and obligations of landlords and tenants

The Court adhered to the principles of Section 100 CPC and State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, holding that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless they are perverse or recorded de hors the pleadings

The Court observed that the Appellants failed to satisfy the mandatory procedural requirements for interpleader suits under Order 35 Rules 1 and 5 of the CPC

Specifically, Rule 5 contains a statutory prohibition against tenants instituting such suits against their landlords

The Court further reasoned that the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is a special statute intended to provide a comprehensive mechanism for adjudicating landlord-tenant disputes, including those involving title and rights, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters

The Court rejected the Appellants' argument that the title dispute fell under the "Explanation" to Section 6 (which reserves general title disputes for Civil Courts), noting that the core of the dispute was a landlord-tenant conflict specifically governed by the Act

As the lower courts correctly applied these statutory bars, the High Court found no perversity or legal infirmity that would constitute a substantial question of law

It held that the interpleader suit was not maintainable due to the express bar under Order 35 Rule 5 of the CPC and the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Rent Control Tribunal by Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011

The Court granted the Appellants liberty to seek redressal before the appropriate legal forum