JUDGMENT O.P. Trivedi, J.
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: Gopal-das Khetty v. Phulchand, 1946 AC 357; Administrator General v Prem Lall, 0895) 1LR 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 hig 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. I, therefore, overrule the objection and hold that Smt. Shanti Devi was competent to bring a suit for ejectment against the appellant on the authority of Court's permission.
4. The only other submission of the learned counsel was that the appellant is entitled to be saved from eviction under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 because he claimed to have deposited the entire amount of rent for use and occupation together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum, and costs of the suit. To my mind, the appellant, is not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 because the benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the said Act is available only in a suit for eviction filed under Clause (a) of Section 20 (2) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was not filed under Section 20 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, but it was filed under the old Act viz., U P. Act III of 1947, the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 is not available to the tenant against whom a suit was filed under the old Act.
5. No other point was pressed.
The appeal is without any force and is dismissed with costs to the respondents.