INDER SINGH Vs. SARDAR SAHIB BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision is directed against the order of the trial Court holding that the undischarged insolvent has locus standi to evict the tenant from the property belonging to him which had vested in the Receiver due to his insolvency.

(2.) ON facts, there is no dispute. The Respondent was declared an insolvent and a Receiver of his estate was appointed. The insolvent did not apply for discharge within the time specified and, therefore, the insolvency was terminated on annulment of the adjudication; but the property continued to vest in the Official Receiver. The Respondent filed the present suit, out of which this revision has arisen for ejectment of the Defendant -Petitioner on the ground that he is the tenant of the property in dispute and as he had not paid the rent, he was entitled to be evicted and the Plaintiff put in possession. The tenant raised the plea that as the property of the Plaintiff had vested in the Receiver, the Plaintiff had no locus standi to bring the present suit.

(3.) MR . H.L. Sibal, who appears for the Petitioner -tenant, has raised the contention that as the property of the insolvent has vested in the Receiver and has continued to so vest by reason of the Annulment Order and there being no discharge of the insolvent the insolvent has no locus standi to bring a suit for ejectment with regard to property which has so vested. Mr. Sibal relies upon Sections 28 and 28 -A of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. However, the matter is not res integra. Precisely, the same question arose for decision in Mutha Sarvarayudu's case : A.I.R. 1961 A.P. 219, and in some what similar circumstances, it was held that there was nothing in the Provincial Insolvency Act, which would debar the insolvent to recover property from a third party. The rule is well -settled that the insolvent cannot sue the Receiver or the creditors. But Apart from these two categories of parties, there is nothing in the Act which prevents him to bring suits to recover the property and make it good to the Receiver or to the Insolvent's Estate. It is also to be kept in mind that the ultimate residue of the property goes back to the insolvent and his property is only vested in the Receiver for the benefit of the creditors. Whatever residue remains after satisfying the creditors necessarily belongs to the insolvent. As already said, in the Andhra Pradesh case, it was held that: