SUMITA DEVI Vs. DAYA SHANKAR MEHROTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 1956 passed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge Kanpur, affirming the decree of the learned Munsif for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit The learned single Judge before whom this appeal came up for decision has referred it for disposal to a Division Bench because in his opinion the question raised in this appeal is of some importance.

(2.) THE facts leading to this second appeal, briefly stated, are that one Sukhdeo Prasad, a tenant of certain premises, was declared in solvent on 11-7-1950, and his estate was taken over by the official receiver on 22-7-1950 Though Sukhdeo Prasad was adjudged insolvent no order for his discharge was passed till 31st December, 1950 Sukhdeo Prasad had taken two portions of the premises Nos 25, 26. Kirachikhana, Kanpur, at a monthly rent of Rs 40 and Rs 31/25 (in all Rs 71/25 P.) for purposes of godown and machine room respectively. The godown was vacated on the 1st December, 1950, but the machine room remained locked till after 31st December, 1952 The claim of the plaintiff, therefore, was for the rent of both the premises upto 1st December. 1950, and thereafter, for the rent of the machine room only upto 31st December. 1952.

(3.) THE plaintiff, in reply, contended that the official receiver must be deemed to be in possession of both the premises in question during the period in suit and in any case she was entitled to recover the amount due to her as expenses of administration which could be recovered from the official receiver by means of a suit.