Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that appointment of the receiver is subsequent to filing of the suit for ejectment. The judgment and decree were passed prior to the initiation of the proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Kolkata. Pressing Section 64(2) of the CPC, Mr. Mazumdar submits that as the judgment and decree was passed prior to the ejectment, so the execution of decree for enforcement of an interest of the respondent/decree holder over the tenanted premises by ejecting the petitioners/tenants shall not in any way be barred owing to the attachment. It is further stated that once the decree of ejectment is passed, the tenant under the Rent control Act ceased from being entitled for protection of his tenancy, rather after the decree the status of a tenant converts to an unauthorized occupier. On the date of attachment the status of present tenant/petitioners were unauthorized occupants of the suit premises in view of the CRP 258 of 2016 judgment and decree passed in the Title Suit No.238/1996(new), 50/85(old). In support of his submission, Mr. Mazumdar relies M.A. Srimankar Vs. A.P. Enterprises passed by the High Court of Bombay in its original jurisdiction in summary suit No.4113/1997 reported in 2002 O Supreme (MHA) 722.

16. In the present case, a decree is already in existence in favour of the respondents on the date of appointment of receiver and on the date of acceptance of symbolic possession by the receiver. The medium of transfer of possession in favour of the respondents, in the event of execution of the decree for ejectment of defendants/petitioners would be through the process of the court as per the decree. Such recovery of possession does not amount to any private transfer rather the same is involuntary in nature. Such involuntary action i.e receiving of possession from the petitioners/tenants in execution of a decree passsed prior to the attachment is not prohibited by Section 64 of the CPC. In the M.A. Shrimankar Vs. A.P. Enterprises (supra) the High Court of Bombay held as follows: