- (1.)These proceedings arise under an application filed under Or.39, R.10, C.P.C. directing the defendant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent due to the plaintiff-landlords. Two suits are filed by the same plaintiff but the defendants are different and hence two C.R.PS. The suits are laid for recovery of rent These applications are resisted by the defendants that there are no arrears. However, the trial Court taking the view that the counters are not clear and construing the averments in the counter as admissions, ordered deposit of rents under Or.39, R.10, C.P.C. On appeal the appellate Court reversed the said order and held there is no admission on the part of the defendants that there are arrears and in view of that, Or.39, R.10, C.P.C., has no application.
(2.)The only question is whether the proceeding are well founded under Or.39, R.10 C.P.C. It is not necessary to look to Or.39, R. 10, C.P.C. which is in the following terms Where the subject-matter of a suit is money or some other thing capable of delivery, and any party thereto admits that he holds such money or other thing as a trustee. for another party, or that it belongs or is due to another party, the Court may order the same to be deposited in Court or delivered to such last named party, with or without security subject to the further direction of the Court". It speaks of two requirements. (1) There must be an admission on the part of the party about the holding of money on other thing by him. (2) Such money and other thing does not belong to him.
(3.)It is true that the words "another party" stricty do not relate to the plaintiff, though some cases took the view if there is an ad mission on the part of the defendant an the funds belonging to the plaintiff he may be directed to deposit under Or.39, R.10, C.P.C. But in any view there must be an admission within the meaning of Or. 12, R.6. C.P.C. and that admission must relate to a fact that he is holding the amount on behalf of another. Even assuming that the rents are due it cannot be said that the holding of the rents due can be said to have been held by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is one thing to say on the strength of the admission a decree can be passed under Or. 12, R.6, C.P.C, or under Or.8, R.5, C.P.C., but yet another thing to say that he can be directed to deposit the amount as a part of supplementary proceedings under Sec.94, C.P.C. To my mind apart from the finding of the Court below that there are noarrears, the provisions of Or.39, R.10, C.P.C. would not empower the Court to direct the arrears to be deposited in the Court. It can pass a decree if there is an admission on the part of the defendant so that the trial on a vital issue like this may come to a close. Hence, this rule applies only when the party making admission holds the property or other thing which the party in whose favour the order is made seeks to deliver it to him. The earliest authority is found in Rajah Parthasaradhi Appa Row v. Rajaiah Rengiah Appa Row, A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 168. Hence I am of the opinion that the view of the appellate Court is well founded. I see no infirmity in this view and the C.R.Ps., fail and they are dismissed. No costs. C.R.Ps. dismissed.