SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) This is an application of one Shiv Sankar Sah. The application is in the nature of Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant is obstructing the execution of the decree on the ground that he was a tenant under the original landlord prior to execution of the lease by the original landlord in favour of Late Prakash Wathi Chopra. The applicant claims possession in a portion of the premises namely C(3) as identified in the report by the present receiver.
(2.) The erstwhile receiver in his report filed in terms of the order dated 31st January, 2017 has recorded that on 26th June, 2017 the occupant of the portion marked as C(3) surrendered and made over vacant possession of the same by submitting key to the erstwhile receiver by his letter dated 12th June, 2017 and recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2017. The said report was filed on 1st August, 2017. However, this time when the receiver visited the premises, in his report he made the following observations:- (g) A portion of the said premises namely C(3) which was already in possession of the erstwhile receiver as will be evident from the report by putting a lock and key thereat, I observed the following :- Another padlock was put by some persons over the padlock of the receiver; Computerized print out has been struck on the gate which says "Shiv Shankar Sah"; Over the said gate another blue coloured board has been put up which also says "Shiv Sankar Sah". It seems to me that the new board has been put on the said room.
(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant is unable to reconcile to factual situations and is also unable to say whether Shiv Sankar Sah has put another padlock over the existing one. If the applicant has put another padlock over the padlock of the receiver, it is a clear case of contempt. Perhaps the applicant realising the consequence of such act is disowning and/or feigning ignorance about such padlock. The applicant in the petition did not mention about the surrender made in respect of the said portion by the occupant on 16th June, 2017. Although the present application has been filed on 27th July, 2017, it has not been alleged that he was dispossessed by the receiver. The applicant has failed to give any satisfactory reply about another padlock over the padlock of the receiver. Prima facie it appears that he was not in possession for all these years. However, the matter is required to be heard on affidavits.;