KIRTARATH GIR Vs. MUTHARA PRASAD RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment-debtor in this case is a permanent lessee or thekadar paying a certain rent to the zamindar. In the execution department in execution of a decree passed against him the learned Subordinate Judge has appointed a Receiver to collect rents recoverable by the thekadar from occupancy and non-occupancy tenants. He has come here in appeal in consequence. It was argued on his behalf that he was in the position of a non-occupancy tenant and his interest in the holding cannot be transferred except by way of lease of one year.

(2.) It was contended that the order of the lower Court amounted to a transfer or the interest of a thekadar and was therefore invalid under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Agra Tenancy Act. Reference was also made to Order 40, Rule 1 for the appointment of a Receiver where a Court is given power to order the removal of any person from the possession or custody of the property.

(3.) The inference sought to be drawn, was that the property has been removed from the possession and custody of this thekadat and Receiver is appointed to be in possession and custody of the property. We do not take this view of the appointment of Receiver. Order 40 does not specifically refer to execution proceedings.