RAM SARAN DAS Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation which was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi against the present appellant, Ram Saran Das, who is admittedly in occupation of the disputed building as a tenant. Smt. Shanti Devi had been appointed receiver of the disputed property in another suit and filed the suit in her capacity as receiver. The trial court awarded a decree for ejectment as well as arrears of rent and damages. The defendant Ram Saran Das appealed, but the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree of the trial Court and, therefore, he comes here in second appeal.

(2.) I have heard Sri S. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, who submitted that the receiver Smt. Shanti Devi could not maintain the suit in her own name as receiver and that the suit ought to have been filed in the name of owner of the premises. I find no force in the submission. It is not disputed that Smt. Shanti Devi as receiver had applied to the court for permission to file a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent etc., against the tenant Ram Saran Das and that she was permitted by the Court to file such a suit against the tenant. When a receiver is appointed under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code the property is in custodia legis. The receiver is an officer or representative of the court. His possession is possession of the court through receiver and when he is appointed to receive rent and profits of immovable property, the tenant becomes virtually the tenant of the court and the court becomes his landlord. (See: Gopaldas Khetty v. Phulchand, 1946 AC 357; Administrator General v. Prem Lall, (1895) ILR 22 Cal 1011 (PC); Dwijendra v. Joges, (1924) 39 Cal LJ 40 : (AIR 1954 Cal 600). Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Naba Gopal Chaki, ((1907) ILR 34 Cal 305) was a leading case on the point. In that case the Calcutta High Court took the view that "a court may authorise a receiver to sue in his own name, and a receiver, who is authorised to sue, though not expressly in his own name, may do so by virtue of his appointment with full powers under Section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure." At page 317 the Calcutta High Court made the following observation which is pertinent to the present discussion; "The Title of property for the time being, and for the purpose of the administration, may, in a sense, be said to be in the Court. The receiver is appointed for the benefit of all concerned, he is the representative of the Court, and of all parties interested in the litigation, wherein he is appointed. He is the right arm of the court in exercising the jurisdiction invoked in such cases for administering the property, the court can only administer through a receiver. ............"

(3.) NO other point was pressed. The appeal is without any force and is dismissed with costs to the respondents. Appeal dismissed.