Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, the Court Receiver appointed by the High Court in Suit No.234 of 1987, was the receiver of the suit property 'Dev Ashish' at Peddar Road, Mumbai. The defendant, M/s. Shree Ram Mills Ltd. (now Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited), was a tenant in the property. Since the defendant was a public limited company with paid-up share capital of Rs.1 crore, it was not protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 26.7.2001 terminating the tenancy with immediate effect and demanding possession and mesne profits. The defendant failed to vacate, leading to the filing of an eviction suit by the Court Receiver. The suit was decreed, and the defendant's appeal (Appeal No.837/2003) was dismissed on 12.6.2009. The defendant then filed the present civil revision application. The defendant raised two grounds: (1) the Court Receiver had not obtained leave of the appointing court to file the suit, and (2) the notice demanding immediate possession was defective under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plaintiff contended that the Receiver was appointed with full powers under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC, which included the power to sue, so no separate leave was needed. Regarding the notice, the plaintiff argued that under Section 106(3) T.P. Act, a notice is not invalid if the suit is filed after the expiry of the notice period. The court held that the Receiver, appointed with full powers under Order 40 Rule 1(d), had inherent authority to sue without separate leave. The court also held that the notice, though demanding immediate possession, was not invalid because the suit was filed after the expiry of the requisite notice period. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Court Receiver - Power to Sue - Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC - A Court Receiver appointed with full powers under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC, including the power to sue and be sued, does not require separate leave of the court to file an eviction suit; the authority is inbuilt in the order of appointment. (Paras 1-3) B) Transfer of Property Act - Notice to Quit - Validity - Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - A notice under Section 106 T.P. Act demanding immediate possession is not invalid if the suit is filed after expiry of the requisite notice period, as per sub-section (3) of Section 106. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Court Receiver appointed with full powers under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC requires separate leave of the court to file an eviction suit; Whether a notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act demanding immediate possession is invalid
Final Decision
Civil Revision Application No. 452 of 2009 dismissed; eviction decree and dismissal of appeal confirmed
Law Points
- Court Receiver appointed with full powers under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC has inherent authority to sue without separate leave
- Notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act is not invalid if suit is filed after expiry of notice period despite immediate termination clause
