Judgment :- 1. In this revision Mr. S. Boothalingam Aiyar, learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner challenges the orders of both the subordinate courts passed in O.S. 42 of 1961 appointing a receiver for the property which is the subject of that litigation. 2. The circumstances under which the orders under attack came to be passed will have to be briefly indicated. The respondent-plaintiff, after making infructuous attempts to get possession of the properties on the basis that he is the landlord under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, ultimately instituted O.S. 398 of 1960 in the Munsiff's Court, Cochin for recovery of possession of the property from the defendant-petitioner on the basis of his title. No doubt, the title of the plaintiff is very hotly contested by the defendant in the suit, apart from the various other contentions taken by him. 3. But inasmuch as the plaintiff, who originally filed the application under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the petitioner did not get any relief and as practically his application has been dismissed, and as in the meanwhile the defendant obtained redelivery of the properties, he filed I.A. 3458 of 1960 in O.S. 398 of 1960 for a temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner from obtaining redelivery of the properties, on the basis or the orders passed under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 4. That application again was very strenuously opposed by the revision petitioner and it is seen that ultimately the learned Munsiff by his order dated 2nd January 1961 dismissed this application. It will be seen that the trial court is of the view that the plaintiff has not at that stage made out a prima facie case to disentitle the revision petitioner to obtain redelivery. Ultimately, as mentioned earlier, the trial court felt that there are absolutely no grounds justifying the grant of temporary injunction and dismissed I.A. 3458 of 1960. 5. This order was the subject of an attack by the plaintiff before the learned Subordinate Judge of Cochin in C.M.A.1 of 1961. The learned Subordinate Judge disposed of this Appeal by his order dated 30th January 1961. 5. This order was the subject of an attack by the plaintiff before the learned Subordinate Judge of Cochin in C.M.A.1 of 1961. The learned Subordinate Judge disposed of this Appeal by his order dated 30th January 1961. It is seen that in the course of that judgment, the learned judge has observed that the question to be considered is as to whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case regarding his title. That aspect is considered and dealt with by the learned judge and the finding of the learned judge is that the property concerned does not belong to the plaintiff is clear from the evidence. That is the view of the court. No doubt the learned judge has also referred to the fact that it is equally clear that the revision petitioner was paying rent to the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge, has also held that the present revision petitioner is entitled to get redelivery of the room by way of restitution. 6.In the latter part of his order, the learned judge says that in as much as he feels considerable doubt regarding the possession of the property claimed by the parties concerned, and as he feels that there is very acute fight for possession, it is convenient to appoint a receiver so that the interests of both sides can be considered and protected. It is on that basis ultimately that the learned judge appointed a receiver to take charge of the property. 7. It is seen that after the order was passed by the learned judge in CMA.1 of 1961 the suit viz., O.S. 398 of 1960 which was in the Cochin Munsiff's Court was found to be non-cognizable by that court and ultimately that suit was transferred to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cochin and numbered as O.S. 42 of 1961 of the file of that Court. 8. After the suit was so transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cochin, the plaintiff filed I.A. 752 of 1961 not for a grant of a temporary injunction as he originally did before the Munsiff's Court of Cochin in I.A. 3458 of 1960, but really for the appointment of a receiver. That application was opposed by the revision petitioner. 9. 8. After the suit was so transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cochin, the plaintiff filed I.A. 752 of 1961 not for a grant of a temporary injunction as he originally did before the Munsiff's Court of Cochin in I.A. 3458 of 1960, but really for the appointment of a receiver. That application was opposed by the revision petitioner. 9. It should be stated at this stage, that the same learned judge who disposed of CMA.1 of 1961 as an appellate authority and finally held that a receiver is to be appointed dealt with this identical application I.A. 752 of 1961 as a trial court over again. It is rather regrettable that the learned judge, when he must have known fully well that he has already expressed very definite views regarding the rights of parties sitting as a court of appeal in CMA.1 of 1961, should not ordinarily hear another application wherein the same question fell to be decided, though it is in a different capacity. The proper thing, in my view, for that officer to do was to draw the attention of the learned District Judge that he has already dealt with the dispute between the parties and expressed the opinion as an appellate authority, in CMA.1 of 1961, and request the learned District Judge of Ernakulam to exercise powers under S.20 CPC. and transfer the proceedings administratively to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam so that the parties may have the benefit of the decision by an officer who has not dealt with the matter on any former occasion. But the learned judge did not adopt this procedure and he himself dealt with I.A. 752 of 1961. 10. One can at least appreciate when the same learned judge is dealing with a matter in another capacity and when the parties claim different reliefs if the learned judge had really considered the matter afresh without reference to what he has stated or expressed on a former occasion. That again, the learned judge did not do when the application I.A 752 of 1961 was dealt with by him by his order dated 13th November 1961. That again, the learned judge did not do when the application I.A 752 of 1961 was dealt with by him by his order dated 13th November 1961. On the other hand the learned judge was fully conscious that he has granted relief to the plaintiff on a former occasion and that it is the same relief that is asked for in the application that was being dealt with by him is clear from the narration of facts in the order itself. The learned judge in fact, without any consideration of I.A. 752 of 1961 independently, makes a summary reference to the fact that he has already passed an order appointing a receiver in CMA.1 of 1961, and in fact, he goes to the extent of even appending a copy of that judgment as part of the reasons for allowing I.A. 752 of 1961. I do not propose to say more on this conduct of the learned judge, excepting to say that it was highly unfair to the parties concerned. 11. Against this order in I.A. 752 of 1961 the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge of Ernakulam in CMA.10 of 1962. Two objections were taken by the revision petitioner against the order passed in I.A. 752 of 1961. One was that the learned trial judge has not independently considered the point arising for decision in I.A. 752 of 1961 and that he has merely referred to the reasons given by him on a former occasion in C.M.A.1 of 1961 for granting the prayer asked for by the plaintiff. The second ground of attack was on merits namely, that the order appointing a receiver should not have been made. I dare say, that the learned District Judge also when he was disposing of C.M.A. 10 of 1962, must have been fully aware about the facts and circumstances under which I.A. 752 of 1961 was passed by the very same learned judge who had already decided an identical matter, though no doubt in a different capacity, as an appellate authority in C.M.A.1 of 1961. 12. If that is so, there was a greater obligation on the part of the learned District Judge to consider whether the grievance of the revision petitioner that there has been no independent consideration by the trial court in disposing of I.A. 752 of 1961 is really well-founded or not. 12. If that is so, there was a greater obligation on the part of the learned District Judge to consider whether the grievance of the revision petitioner that there has been no independent consideration by the trial court in disposing of I.A. 752 of 1961 is really well-founded or not. But the learned District Judge merely brushes aside by saying that whatever the grievance of the appellant may be, the learned District judge does not propose to go deeper in the matter. Further the learned District Judge proceeds on the basis that a receiver has been functioning for about 2 years and he does not wish to disturb that arrangement as no parties will be prejudiced. The learned judge gives a direction that the suit itself will be disposed of within two months from 22nd December 1962. 13. These two orders of the learned District Judge, as well as of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin are under severe attack, quite naturally, at the hands of Mr. S. Boothalingam Aiyar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 14. Under these circumstances Mr. N. Parameswaran Moothathu learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent found considerable difficulty in supporting the manner in which the application in the first instance, and the appeal have been disposed of by the authorities concerned. 15. I entirely agree with the criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the disposal of I A. 752 of 1961 by the learned Subordinate Judge is absolutely unsatisfactory and the learned District Judge, also unfortunately, has not cared to investigate the grievance of the petitioner. 16. Ordinarily, I should have straightaway set aside all the orders under attack and directed I.A. 752 of 1961 to be taken up for fresh consideration and disposal without reference to any of the reasons given in the orders, under attack. Bat much considerable time, unfortunately has elapsed and there is no purpose in now asking the trial court to take up after 31/2 years, for fresh consideration I.A. 752 of 1961. Unfortunately by virtue of these illegal orders, as I will call them, a receiver has also been allowed to function and normally that receiver order must be set aside. 17. Unfortunately by virtue of these illegal orders, as I will call them, a receiver has also been allowed to function and normally that receiver order must be set aside. 17. Though I am not certainly satisfied that these orders should be confirmed, I am not interfering with them for the sole reason that considerable time has elapsed and the receiver has been in possession of the properties for over 31/2 years. But the petitioner cannot go without getting some relief at the hands of this Court. Therefore, while upholding the order of the receiver for the limited reasons given by me above, and expressing my complete dissent with the approach made by the subordinate courts for appointing a receiver, there will be a direction to the effect that the receiver will forthwith get the premises vacated from the tenant, to whom it is stated they have been let, and give the premises to the revision petitioner on lease. The revision petitioner, till the adjudication of the final dispute as between the parties, will continue as tenant under the receiver of court. 18. So far as the rent at which the premises is to be let to the petitioner is concerned, Mr. Boothalingam Iyer learned counsel for the petitioner states that according to his client the rent payable is only Rs. 15/-. But these are all matters which will have to be adjudicated upon in the suit itself. The premises will be let by the receiver to the petitioner on lease at the rate at which it has now been let to the third parties. From and out of the rent that may be paid by the petitioner, it is open to the respondent to draw a sum of Rs. 15/- only and the balance amount will continue to be to the credit of the suit, in respect of which directions can be given by the court, ultimately at the termination of the suit itself. In view of the fact that I have finally confirmed the orders of the lower courts appointing a receiver though for different reasons, this C.R.P. will stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Dismissed.