I.P Mukerji, J. - (1.) There is a premise numbered 2/1, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, Calcutta, which is one of the most expensive places in the city. It is here that the appellant Ravi Kumar Agarwal operates. In one portion of this premise he runs four different kinds of businesses. One is cafe, another a pharmacy by the name of Harrington Blue Print, another a ration shop and the last an enterprise called R.K. Communications.
(2.) Nobody really knows the exact date and time the appellant started occupying this premise. But by the judgment and order under appeal dated 12th May 2009, he has been directed to hand over vacant possession of the portion occupied by him to the receiver within four months of passing of the order. It has been held in that judgment and order that his induction had been made illegally by the then receiver without obtaining permission of the court. Hence, this appeal by him.
(3.) This power and practice of the court is well known. When a receiver has been appointed over a property, it is possession by the court. If any person is brought into the premise by the receiver without authority of the court, the court has summary powers of evicting that person. This law is very clearly stated in Kerr on Receiver and Woodroffe on Receiver. It has also been recognised by the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank P.L.C. and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 899.;