Judgment : Roy, J.: In terms of the powers conferred on him by the order passed and made on 4th May, 1983 and 27th September, 1983, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Writ petition Nos. 638, 757-800 of 1983, the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, in Case No. 37 of 1986, issued an order of attachment against M/s. Insulation Materials Manufacturing Company Private Limited (hereinafter refereed to as the said Company) in respect of the tenancy right standing in the name of Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. in respect of two office Rooms being Nos. 7 and 9 on the mezzanine floor of the premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-l along with all furnitures, fixture, moveables and all other appertaincies attached and lying therein. By the order in question, which was passed on 3rd September, 1986, the tenancy right and the properties as mentioned hereinbefore were sought to be attached by the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, claiming them to be actually belonging to or controlled and managed by Sanchaita Investments, in the name of others. 2. On receipt of the notice dated 3rd September, 1986, as mentioned hereinbefore, a petition dated 1st October, 1986, was filed through one Ratanlal Rampuria claiming to be one of the Directors of the said Company. In the petition, it has been stated that the said Company viz, the objector are the lessee/landlords in respect of 1/1A, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-700 001 and they inducted M/s. Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. as a monthly tenant in respect of Room No.9 on the first floor of premises No.l/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-I with effect from 1st January, 1973 and the monthly rent was Rs. 643.90 P. The terms and conditions of the concerned agreement of tenancy dated 2nd January, 1973, have also been disclosed in the concerned petition. It has been indicated that by a letter dated 2nd January, 1973, the monthly rent as mentioned above, in respect of the tenancy was enhanced from 643.90 P. to Rs. 705/- by the said company through their letter dated 2nd January 1973, in consideration of the improvement which was done to the premises and it has also been stated that the tenant in question, had agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 705/- by the said company through their letter dated 2nd January 1973, in consideration of the improvement which was done to the premises and it has also been stated that the tenant in question, had agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 705/- per month with effect from 1st January, 1974 and thereafter, they have shifted their office room No.9 to a larger area and consequently monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,025/-, in terms of another agreement dated 2nd September, 1975. The agreement in question has also been disclosed with the petition. 3. It was the case that by virtue of the further agreement, Room No. 7 on the mezzinine floor of the premises in question was also included in the tenancy of the tenant as mentioned above, with effect from 1st October, 1977 at an additional rent of Rs. 325/- and thus, the total rent payable by the tenant became Rs. 1,350/- on and from 1st October, 1977. 4. It was the case of the deponent that the tenant in question, had failed and neglected to pay the monthly rent from March, 1983 to October, 1984, as a result whereof, in November, 1984, the said Company filed a Distress Cases in the Small Causes Court at Calcutta, being Distress Case No. 102 of 1984, for recovery of rent for a period of 12 months from the tenant in question, by obtaining leave from the Small Causes Court at Calcutta. It is an admitted fact that the said Company, through the Distress Case as mentioned above, realised the rent for the 12 months in question. 5. It was the further case of the deponent that the tenant again defaulted in making payment of further rent from November, 1984 and as such, they made themselves liable to be evicted from the premises in question and the said Company having no alternative, on due service of Ejectment notice dated 5th October, 1985, terminated the tenancy in question and asked the tenant to quit and vacate the premises in their possession and also to deliver, vacant possession of the same. This notice has been stated to have been duly served on the tenant, but since they-did not vacate the tenancy, after the expiry of the statutory period, the said Company filed Ejectment Suit No. 843 of 1985 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, for recovery of khas possession of the premises in occupation of the tenant. It was the further case of the deponent the summons were duly served upon the tenant and inspite of such service they did not appear and contest the suit and ultimately the concerned ejectment suit was decreed in favour of the said Company, by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta on 4th July, 1986. It has been stated by the deponent further that after passing of the decree, the said Company could not get vacant possession of the premises in suit and as such, the decree in question, was put into execution and the said execution proceedings was registered as Ejectment Execution Case No. 171 of 1986, for recovery of khas possession of the concerned premises. 6. It has been stated that in pursuance of the order of the Executing Court, on 30th July, 1986, the Bailiff of the Court went to be premises in question and accordingly, on that date, in execution of the Decree dated 4th July, 1986, the Bailiff made over the khas possession of the premises in question to the said Company. 7. It was the further case of the deponent that on the date of service of the notice of ejectment, which in fact, was served on 3rd September, 1986, there was not in existence any tenancy light of the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd., in respect of the premises in question, as their tenancy was duly determined and possession was obtained on execution of the decree, as passed The deponent has stated that as such or in any event, the question of attaching the premises in question, as his been contended by the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, would not arise. It has also been stated that after getting possession of the premises in question, in the manner as indicated hereinbefore, the said Company has partitioned the premises and let out the partitioned portions to the following firms :- a) Partitioned portion called room No. 9A, let out to M/s. Orissa Petro Chemical Corporation vide agreement dated 1st August, 1986 at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- with effect from 1st August, 1986 on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement; b) Partitioned portion called room No. 9B let out to M/s. S.N.M. Consultants vide agreement dated 1st August, 1986 at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- with effect from 1st August, 1986 on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement dated 1.8.1986; c) Partitioned portion called room No. 9C let out to M/s. Jain Vinijya Udyog Limited vide agreement dated, 1st August, 1986 at a monthly rent of Rs.400/- with effect from 1st August, 1986 on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement dated 1st August, 1986 and pursuant to the agreement as disclosed with the petition, they have duly made over possession of the concerned premises being Room No. 9 on the mezzanine floor as mentioned above, to the newly inducted tenants (three in number) and they are paying monthly rents to the said Company. 8. In any event and without prejudice to the above grounds, the deponent has stated that, even assuming, but not admitting, that on the date of the issue of the notice of ejectment dated 3rd September, 1986, the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. as mentioned above, had subsisting tenancy right and/or interest in respect of the tenancy, such tenancy right was not legally attachable. It has also been stated that, the said Company, (has not consented in writing or otherwise to the transfer or assignment or sub-letting or parting with possession of the premises in question, to or in favour of anybody and in such circumstances, the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments was not entitled and had no jurisdiction to attach the tenancy right in respect of the premises in question, even in terms of the orders as passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India). It was claimed that the action as taken by the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments in this case, was not appropriate authorised by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and according to the deponent, no funds of Sanchaita Investments were ever invested in connection with the tenancy of the said Anirban Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. as mentioned above, relating to Room Nos. 7 and 9 on the mezzanine floor of premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta- I. It was pointed out further that the existence of the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. was much-earlier than that of Sanchaita Investments and the deponent has alleged that the attachment Older has been issued on hypothetical basis as there was no assets or properties of the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd., left out to be attached by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. 9. The learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments by his affidavit dated 7tb April, 1987, has disclosed his powers and authority in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and has claimed that the attachment in the instant case, was duly levied and the same was authorised too. He has also indicated that Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. was incorporated in June, 1972 and the same started carrying on its business at its Registered Office being premises No. 1/1 Vansitart Row, Calcutta with the Directors viz. (1) Shri Swapan Kumar Guha (brother of Tapan Kumar Guha), (2) Shri Tapan Kumar Guha. (3) Smt. Suparna Guha (wife of Shri Tapan Kumar Guha) and (4) Shri Rajat Chakraborty (nephew of Sri Sambhu Prasad Mukherjee, since deceased). On reference to the constitution of the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. and their Annual Report, the Commissioner, Sanchita Investments has stated that there is no doubt that they used to accept deposits of money against payment of interest. It was also indicated by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments that the persons as mentioned above, had also stalled another business under the name and style of Sanchaita Savings Scheme Pvt. Ltd., which has also the Registered Office at the same room and place at premises No. 1/1. Vansitart Row, Calcutta. He has further indicated that in July 1975. Shri Swapan Kumar Guha, Shri Sambhu Prasad Mukherjee since deceased and one Suri Beharilal Murarka started a partnership business under the name and style of Sanchaita Investments and he has also given the nature and character of the said firm and also the particulars or the kinds of business they used the carry on. Shri Swapan Kumar Guha, Shri Sambhu Prasad Mukherjee since deceased and one Suri Beharilal Murarka started a partnership business under the name and style of Sanchaita Investments and he has also given the nature and character of the said firm and also the particulars or the kinds of business they used the carry on. It has also been stated that with the gRowth and development of the business of the said Sanchaita Investments, within a very short span of time, they started another office at 5/4, fancy lane, Calcutta, in addition to their office in the rooms as involved in this case at premises No. 1/1, Vanistart Row, Calcutta. It was also the case of the learn ed Commissioner that in course of time, Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. ceased to have any business or existence and their place of business was entirely possessed of by the Sanchaita Investments. 10. It was the further case of the learned Commissioner that inasmuch as the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. and so also the Sanchaita Investments used to carryon the business, inter alia, at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta, he in exercise of his powers, took charge of the mezzanine floor office on 17th June, 1983 and on 11th February, 1984, and he, in exercise of his powers and authority took possession of the first floor office of the said Anirban Chit Fund, (P) Ltd. at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta in a portion whereof, another business under the name and style M/s Sunlight Films was started and were carried on by the said firm and their partners. The learned Commissioner has stated that on 12th April 1985, he took possession of mezzanine floor of the premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calculta with police help and since the dates of taking over possession they were and are under his possession. He has indicated that at the time of taking over possession various valuable articles, furniture and assets beloning to the firm as mentioned above and so also of M/s. Sunlight Films, which has now been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as a firm of Sanchaita Investments, were found to be lying in the said mezzanine floor and the first floor of premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta. 11. The learned Commissioner has stated that on 11th February, 1984 and 12th April. 11. The learned Commissioner has stated that on 11th February, 1984 and 12th April. 1985, after taking over possession of the office, he had put his padlock therein, in the presence of the police authorities and the employees of other tenants present therein, including the Durwan of the said Company. It was his case that all those persons gathered around to witnesses the proceedings of possession being taken by him and it appeared that they well-realised the fact of taking over possession by him and as such, they were fully aware of such facts. As stated earlier, the learned Commissioner has reiterated that since such taking over possession he is really in actual possession of Room Nos. 7 and 9 in the said premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta and such being the position and facts, it is, according to the learned Commissioner, abundantly clear and there could not be any room for doubt regarding the fact that the said Company had due knowledge and notice of the fact of taking over the possession and charge by him of the rooms as mentioned above and such being the position, it is inconceivable to accept that the said Company could obtain a decree of eviction of the tenants as mentioned above, from the rooms in the premises in question from the City Civil Court at Calcutta by notice dated 5th August, 1985 and thereafter, could get the possession of the rooms in question, on execution of the decree of 30th July, 1986. It was the categorical case of the learned Commissioner that he was in possession and charge of the premises as mentioned hereinbefore and the moveable properties lying therein as an Officer appointed by the Court, meaning there by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He further claimed that taking of any action in the instant case, since he was there as an Officer duly appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, without the necessary leave was improper and such being the position, all actions as put forward now by the said Company were invalid and nullity. The learned Commissioner has also stated that he was never informed at any point of time about the proceedings by which the said Company has obtained possession of the rooms in question, from the erstwhile tenant. The learned Commissioner has also stated that he was never informed at any point of time about the proceedings by which the said Company has obtained possession of the rooms in question, from the erstwhile tenant. He has reiterated that at the material time he, was in possession, charge of the concerned office rooms in the concerned premises and he did not receive any ejectment notice or any summons in respect of Ejectment Suit No. 843 of 1985. He has stated that the notice for initiation of the proceedings against Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd., as it would appear from the pleadings of the said Company, was never served on the tenants and as such also, the decree which was obtained by the said Company, was not valid and bona fide. In fact, the learned Commissioner has obliquely suggested that there was collusion between the said Company the landlord and the tenant viz., Anirban Chit (P) Ltd., in the matter of obtaining the concerned decree or possession of the premises in question through execution of the same. 12. During the course of bearing, on behalf of the said Company, reliance was placed on a notice as issued in the daily issues of The Statesman on 27th May, 1984 and on production of the same, the said Company wanted to contend that the action in the instant case as initiated or taken by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments was not due, bona fide and proper. The other particulars of the submissions as made on the said insertions would be indicated hereafter. To contradict the validity of the submissions as made on the basis of the notice in question, the learned Commissioner, on 12th August, 1987, filed another affidavit, wherefrom it would appear that the Registered Office of Sanchaita Investments at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-1, was printed on the loan deposit certificate issued by Sanchaita Investments. It was claimed by him that the concerned office at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-1 was of Sanchaita Investments and as such, no separate notice was issued in the newspapers. The learned Commissioner has also pointed out that the notices in the newspapers related to the properties which were not actually obtained by the Sanchaita Investments. It was claimed by him that the concerned office at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-1 was of Sanchaita Investments and as such, no separate notice was issued in the newspapers. The learned Commissioner has also pointed out that the notices in the newspapers related to the properties which were not actually obtained by the Sanchaita Investments. He has stated that in fact, he had taken possession of a portion of No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-1, with the help of police force and in the presence of his staff, whose particulars be has disclosed now. It was his case that he has taken possession of the office at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-1 and such fact is well-known now, to everybody, who happens to be in the premises and the factum of taking over such possession has been given wide publicity. It was the case of the learned Commissioner that subsequently, Tapan Kumar Guha, Director of Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd., by a letter which has been disclosed as Annexure "B" to this affidavit, enquired of him as to when he took possession of the premises in. question. It was also the case of the learned Commissioner that he made an inventory after taking over possession and put the room in question, under lock and key. It was also the case that everyone knew that at premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta, there was an office of Sanchaita Investments. 13. The learned Commissioner has also stated that the office room at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-1, has now become necessary for use and occupation, as an office of Sanchaita Investments, in view of release of the office at 1, British India Street on 30th June, 1987 till the affairs of the Sanchaita Investments is wound-up and he has now moved the Advisory Board for that purpose. He has stated that the existing accommodations of 34A & B, Sashi Bhasan Dey Street, Calcutta are not sufficient and as such, he require the additional office space for effective discharge of his duties. In fact, the learned Commissioner, in our view, wants to shift his present office from Sashi Bhusan Dey Street to the said premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta. Such attitude of the learned Commissioner, unless of course the same is allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we cannot appreciate. In fact, the learned Commissioner, in our view, wants to shift his present office from Sashi Bhusan Dey Street to the said premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta. Such attitude of the learned Commissioner, unless of course the same is allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we cannot appreciate. He is required to attach properties, which according to him, belong to Sanchaita Investments or their partners, so that from out of the funds available to him after disposal of that properties, the depositers could get some amount if not the whole of their investments. If the properties as attached, is taking on rent by the learned Commissioner himself, by such fact, the real intention of the orders as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, would be frustrated. 14. The affidavit-in-reply of the said Company was dated 10th June, 1987 and the same was filed through the Director, Mr. Ratanlal Rampuria. The deponent has stated that since the attachment by the learned Commissioner was wrongly issued, so the said Company had no other alternative, but to file the objection under consideration. In any event, the attachment in question, was claimed to be irregular, wrongful and improper. It was also stated Chat Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd., having committed default in making payment of rent, the said Company duly got them ejected on appropriate service of notice and thereafter, they authorisedly received possession of the tenancy in question, on execution of the decree through Court. It was the case of the deponent that he was not aware of the constituents of the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. or those persons, who were connected with the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. and had started another business under the name and style of Sanchaita Savings Scheme Pvt. Ltd. He has not of course, denied the existence of the said Sanchaita Savings Scheme Pvt. Ltd. in the premises in question and the face that they were carrying on their business therefrom. 15. The deponent has further stated that Sanchaita Investments, who are monthly tenant under the said Company, had surrendered the tenancy long ago and the said Company got vacant possession of the accommodation under their possession. He has of course, sought to deny that the said Sanchaita Investments had made any transactions from the premises in question. 15. The deponent has further stated that Sanchaita Investments, who are monthly tenant under the said Company, had surrendered the tenancy long ago and the said Company got vacant possession of the accommodation under their possession. He has of course, sought to deny that the said Sanchaita Investments had made any transactions from the premises in question. It was the further and specific case of the deponent that even if the learned Commissioner has attached various properties belonging to Sanchaita Investments, he had no right to attach the properties of the said Company and more particularly when they have received vacant possession of the premises in question from their tenants M/s. Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. It has been stated that such tenancy right of the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. cannot be treated to be a property or assets of Sanchaita Investments and the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. was never an agent or sub-agent of Sanchaita Investments. In fact, he has pointed out that the Sanchaita Investments came into existence at a much later stage and as such, the tenancy right as mentioned above, cannot be treated to be an asset or property of the said Sanchaita Investments. The deponent has also stated that the tenancy in the instant case, was granted in favour of Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd., which was a Limited Company and after they became non-existant, no other firm or Company can inherit such tenancy right and more particularly when, the vacant possession of the tenancy in question, was received by the said Company in the manner as indicated hereinbefore. It was the further case of .the deponent that the learned Commissioner never took charge of the mezzanine floor office of Sanchaita Investments at premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta on 17th June, 1983 and according to him, such taking over of possession was not possible, as there was no existence of any office or tenancy of Sanchaita Investments at premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta on that date. The statements regarding the taking over of possession on 11th February, 1984, as made by the learned Commissioner, in respect of the office premises of Sanchaita Investments, have been categorically denied and they, have also been claimed to be false, more particularly when, the said Sanchaita Investments had no office premises at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta. The statements regarding the taking over of possession on 11th February, 1984, as made by the learned Commissioner, in respect of the office premises of Sanchaita Investments, have been categorically denied and they, have also been claimed to be false, more particularly when, the said Sanchaita Investments had no office premises at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta. It should be noted that the deponent has not denied the existence of M/s. Sunlight Films as a tenant under the said Company, but has stated that since the said Film Company, defaulted in making payment, the said Company had no other alternative but to file an Ejectment Suit and obtained the decree from the Court of Law and also got possession of the accommodation by putting the decree into execution, It has also been stated that often obtaining the vacant possession in the manner as indicated above, from M/s. Sunlight Films, the said Company let out the concerned premises to other persons, who are In occupation as tenants under them. It has further been denied by the deponent that on 12th April, 1985, the learned Commissioner took possession of the mezzanine floor of the premises at 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta, with Police help. Such statements have been claimed to be false. He has also stated that he has no knowledge about the taking over of such possession by the learned Commissioner. He has also reiterated the facts, backgrounds and circumstances under which possession of the concerned premises, where M/s. Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. was a tenant, was obtained. The deponent has further narrated the way and the manner in which different proceedings including Distress proceedings were initiated against the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. and in such circumstances, be has claimed that thus it is quite obvious that the story of taking over possession of the demised premises by the learned Commissioner was not true and correct. The act of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, of the office premises as indicated hereinbefore and the subsequent steps taken by him by putting his pedlocks, have also been denied and such statements have been claimed to be false. The act of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, of the office premises as indicated hereinbefore and the subsequent steps taken by him by putting his pedlocks, have also been denied and such statements have been claimed to be false. In view of the fact, that had there been any occasion for the learned Commissioner for taking possession of the premises, he ought to have intimated the learned viz., the said Company about his possession and ought to have offered rent including the arrears of rents, which was never done by him. 16. It has been categorically stated that from the facts and the attending circumstances, it is thus abundantly clear that possession of the office room of Sanchaita Investments on the mezzanine floor and first floor being Room Nos. 7 and 9 at premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta, at all material times was not with the learned Commissioner. The challenge of the learned Commissioner to the effect that the entire proceedings by the said Company in the matter of obtaining possession as mentioned hereinbefore, was false, since no leave for filing the suit was obtained, was denied by the deponent and he has stated that such leave as claimed, was not required to be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the said Company had no knowledge or any intimation and notice about the concerned taking over of possession by the learned Commissioner. The deponent has further claimed that by initiating the concerned attachment, the learned Commissioner exceeded the powers as conferred on him by the series of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The deponent has further stated that the taking over of possession by the said Company through the due process of law as mentioned hereinbefore, was due and proper and the alleged taking over of possession by the learned Commissioner was untrue, irregular and wrongful. In fact, he has also denied and disputed the fact that such possession was taken over by the learned Commissioner through the necessary help and assistance of the Police authorities. He has also indicated that nothing was disclosed either before this Court or to the said Company by the learned Commissioner, whereon the help and assistance of the Police authorities were asked for. He has also indicated that nothing was disclosed either before this Court or to the said Company by the learned Commissioner, whereon the help and assistance of the Police authorities were asked for. It has also been stated that it is strange that even after his purported taking over of possession, the learned Commissioner has neither informed the said Company nor anyone or has put his board in the premises in question, which was required to be done by him. As mentioned earlier, it has also been reiterated that rents including the arrears of rents have not also been paid to the said Company by the learned Commissioner and the attempt of the learned Commissioner to say that the decree as was obtained by the said Company through Court or the possession as received on the basis thereof, was a nullity, was improper and not a bona fide stand. The deponent has further indicated that under the circumstances in which the employee of the said Company Mr. P. C. Bothra had put his signature in the relevant documents and has claimed, that by affixing his signature in the circumstances as disclosed in the affidavit, the said Mr. Bothra had acted duly and not otherwise. It was further chimed that on receipt of possession of the premises in dispute, the subsequent tenancies which were created, were due, valid and legal, apart from being authorise. 17. Another affidavit dated 13th August. 1987, was filed on behalf of the said Company through Punamchand Bothra, who claimed to be the Manager of the said Company. He has stated that from 1976-1979, Sanchaita Investments was the tenant in respect of one small office Room No.4 on the first floor at premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta. Thereafter, they had surrender the tenancy. It was further stated by him that after 1979, there was no existence of any office of Sanchaita Investments and the said Sanchaita Investments did not exist at premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta, after 1979. It was also the case of the deponent that the said Company had no knowledge about the purported taking over of possession of premiser No. 1/1 Vansitart Row, Calcutta, by the learned Commissioner and they had also no knowledge about the lodging of any Police Diary or any letter to the police Station, as no copy was ever forwarded to the said Company. The copies of the relevant police records were disclosed earlier by the Learned Commissioner along with his affidavit dated 12th August, 1987 and thereafter, even on 10th June, 1987, the counter affidavit was filed through Mr. Ratanlal Rampuria, yet no such specific defence, as taken now through Mr. Bothra, was taken. In fact, the present affidavit was filed after the Police authorities, on being summoned, produced the original of the G D. Entries in question. 18. It was the further case of the deponent that the said Company had no knowledge about the letter of Shri Tapan Kumar Guha as disclosed by the learned Commissioner and has contended that from a reference to that letter even, it would appear that M/s. Anirban Chit Fund (p) Ltd. of which the said Mr. Guha was one of the Directors till August, 1986, was a tenant. The inventory as was said to have been made by the learned Commissioner, after taking over possession of the premises in question or the validity thereof, was also denied by the deponent. It was his further and specific case that although upto 1979, Sanchaita Investments had an office space, but thereafter, there was no office space standing in their name in the premises in question and as such, according to him, the question of acquiring any space at premises No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta, by the said Sanchaita Investments would not arise. Save: as aforesaid, the deponent has more or less accepted and repeated or reiterated the statements as made earlier by the other deponent Mr. Ratanlal Rampuria. 19. On the basis of the pleadings as indicated hereinbefore, Mr. Jayanta Mitter pointed out that after obtaining possession of the premises as involved, on execution of decree through Court, they were admittedly let out to other tenants and that too before the date of attachment in question, which was on 3rd September, 1986. Mr. Mitter claimed that after obtaining possession of the room in question, the same was partitioned into three, having separate and distinct numbers. Mr. Mitter claimed that after obtaining possession of the room in question, the same was partitioned into three, having separate and distinct numbers. He indicated that Room No. 9A on the mezzanine floor of 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta, was let out to M/s. Orissa Petro Chemical Corporation, Room No. 9B of the same floor, was let out to M/s. S. N. M. Consultants and Room No. 9C, was let out to M/s. Jain Vanijya Ydyoug Limited and as such, he firstly, contended that the attachment of the tenancy right was not possible. He secondly, claimed that even on the basis of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments had no power to attach such tenancy viz., that of Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd., in the facts as disclosed hereinbefore and he thirdly, contended that the tenancy in question, being also a monthly one, the same could not be attached. It was pointed out by Mr. Mitter that in fact, Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. came into existence much earlier than the Sanchaita Investments and he indicated more particularly, that such tenancy of Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. was initiated in or about 1973. 20. Mr. Mitter then referred to the orders dated 4th May, 1983 and 27th September, 1983 as made and passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanchaita matters and indicated that in the instant case, the learned Commissioner has not taken any steps or acted on the basis of the directions as contained in those orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, but his acting in the matter of attaching the rights as involved, was contrary to those orders. It was pointed out by Mr. Mitter that although by the order of attachment the tenancy right of Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. has been sought to be attached, but in fact, there has been no allegations or statements on the point by the learned Commissioner and according to Mr. Mitter, since no funds of Sanchaita Investments were ever invested in connection with the concerned tenancy, so also, the steps as taken by the learned Commissioner in the instant case were improper and such being the position and more particularly when the tennancy in question, never formed a part of Sanchaita Investments, the entire action was unauthorised. Mitter, since no funds of Sanchaita Investments were ever invested in connection with the concerned tenancy, so also, the steps as taken by the learned Commissioner in the instant case were improper and such being the position and more particularly when the tennancy in question, never formed a part of Sanchaita Investments, the entire action was unauthorised. The steps as taken by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments was also claimed to be absolutely unauthorised and void ab initio. It was also claimed by Mr. Mitter that the acting in the instant case by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments was improper, since his appointment as such Commissioner, was not strictly in terms of Order XL, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. 21. Mr. Aninda Mitter appearing for the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, stated that in view of the orders as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the subsequent taking over of possession of the premises in question by him, learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments was in the position of a custodia legis and as such, the purported passing of the decree as made by the City Civil Court, Calcutta and the subsequent claim of taking over of possession on execution of the said decree, for both the cases, without the leave of the Court, was an incompetent act of the said Company. He claimed further that the alleged induction of the three tenants as mentioned hereinbefore, on the face of the records established that such action was taken in a great haste. Mr. Mitter submitted that in fact, the said tenants were available at hand and there was no real induction of them, but the deeds or documents, through which such inductions have been sought to be established, were fake and incompetent too. It was his specific case, that not only from the Police reports as disclosed but also from the inventory list, which was prepared at the time of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, there cannot be any doubt about the fact that the duly took possession of the premises in question and according to Mr. Mitter, the fact that the learned Commissioner took possession of the premises in question, would also appear clear from the letter of Shri Tapan Kumar Guha as mentioned hereinbefore. 22. In was further claimed by Mr. Mitter, the fact that the learned Commissioner took possession of the premises in question, would also appear clear from the letter of Shri Tapan Kumar Guha as mentioned hereinbefore. 22. In was further claimed by Mr. Mitter that such fact of taking over of possession of the premises in question by the learned Commissioner would also appear and established from the minutes of the Advisory Board and so also the different affidavits as filed by the learned Commissioner. He claimed further that the conduct of the said Company would also establish that they had due knowledge, notice and intimation about the fact of taking over possession of the premises in question by the learned Commissioner, as otherwise, the tenants for mentioned hereinbefore, could not be inducted with such hot haste. Such action, it was chimed by Mr. Mitter, was resorted to, for the purpose of frustrating the fact of possession, as was taken by the learned Commissioner. The minutes of the Advisory Board as mentioned hereinbefore, was dated 28th February, 1986 and the same has been disclosed as Annexure 'D' to the affidavit of the learned Commissioner, dated 12th August, 1987 and Mr. Mitter specifically claimed that in exercise of his powers, the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments took charge of (I) the mezzanine floor office of the said Sanchaita Investments at No. 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta on 17th June, 1983 and (2) on 11th February, 1984, he took possession of the first floor office of the Sanchaita Investments, in a portion whereof another business under the name and style of Sunlight Films was started and carried on by the said Sanchaita Investment and its partners. It was further claimed by Mr. Mitter that the learned Commissioner took possession of the mezzanine floor flat at the premises in question with Police help and duly inventorised the articles which were found there and then he put his padlocks in the presence of the Police Authorities and others. It was further claimed by Mr. Mitter that the learned Commissioner took possession of the mezzanine floor flat at the premises in question with Police help and duly inventorised the articles which were found there and then he put his padlocks in the presence of the Police Authorities and others. It was further claimed by him that the fact of taking over possession was complete on l2th April, 1985 and from the attending circumstances the said Company or his authorities, officers and representatives had no doubt, due knowledge, yet they filed the concerned Ejectment Suit on 5th August, 1985 and that too, without the necessary leave of the Court and such being the position, the decree which was received and the possession which was obtained in execution of the same on 4th July, 1986 and 30th July, 1986 respectively, were void ab initio, improper, invalid and irregular. 23. Mr. Mitter, after placing the original records of the City Civil Court, Calcutta Suit, which were called fur and produced, disputed the validity of service of summons also. He of course in his usual fairness stated that there may be no direct evidence of the said Company's knowledge about the fact of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, but such knowledge can be very well and reasonably be inferred or the awareness of the said Company can be deduced from the facts and attending circumstances of the case. In support of such statements, Mr. Mitter stated that 1/1, Vansitart Row, Calcutta is a very big building and various Dwarans and representatives, not only of the said Company but also of others, who were present there at the time of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, were not expected to have escaped the notice or fact of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, more particularly when, he went there to take such possession with a large number of Police people, who again were appropriately armed. He further stated that the above fact viz., the said Company's Dwarans were present at the time of taking over possession has not been duly denied by them and in fact, there has been no affidavit, filed by any of the Dwarans, who were present at the time of taking over possession. He further stated that the above fact viz., the said Company's Dwarans were present at the time of taking over possession has not been duly denied by them and in fact, there has been no affidavit, filed by any of the Dwarans, who were present at the time of taking over possession. He also pointed out that the said Company has not also denied the fact or the presence of their Dwarans at the time of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner. In fact, these were the attending circumstances amongst others, on the basis whereof, Mr. Mitter wanted to establish that the said Company had really knowledge or at least constructive knowledge of the fact of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. He also wanted to support his submissions on awareness or the facts as mentioned hereinbefore, of the said Company, because of the hot haste through which they wanted to let out the premises in question, after having the same partioned into three parts. Such action, according to Mr. Mitter, was taken and as indicated earlier, only to frustrate the effect of the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments taking over possession of the premises in question. He further claimed that it is true that after taking over of such possession of the premises in question, by the learned Commissioner, he has not tendered rent or arrears rent to the said Company, but, that according to him, will not disprove the fact of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. He also stated that the fact that the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments after taking over possession has not affixed any board at the premises in question, will not also disprove the fact of taking over possession by him. It was further claimed by Mr. Mitter that even we assume that the said Company had no previous knowledge, but according to him as soon as the fact of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner came to the knowledge of the said Company, even very lately, they should have applied and obtained necessary leave from the Court concerned, But, such act not having been done or taken, he stand as sought to be taken by the said Company now should be deemed to be immature. 24. 24. While on his submissions that the said Company should have initiated the City Civil Court proceedings with the leave of the Court, since the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments was in prossession of the premises in question, Mr. Mitter referred to the case of (1) Kanhaiyalal v. Dr. D.R. Banaji, AIR 1958 SC 725 , where the Supreme Court has observed that Order 21, Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code requires that where the property is in the custody of any Court or Public Officer, attachment shall be made by a notice to such Court or officer. But the absence of such a notice would not render the sale void ab initio, because the jurisdiction of the Court or the authority ordering the sale, does not depend upon the issue of the notice of attachment. It is also settled law that proceedings taken in respect of a property which is in the possession and management of a Receiver appointed by Court under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, without the leave of that Court, are illegal in the. sense that the party proceeding against the property without the leave of the Court concerned, is liable to be committed for contempt of the Court and that the proceedings so held, do not affect the interest in the hands of the Receiver, who holds the property for the benefit of the party who, ultimately, may be adjudged by the Court to entitled to the same, apart from holding that the general rule that property in custodia legis through its duty appointed Receiver, is exempt from judicial process except to the extent that the leave of that Court has been obtained, is based on a very sound reason of public policy, namely, that there should be no conflict of jurisdiction between different Courts. If a Court has exercised its power to appoint a Receiver of a certain property, it has done so with a view to preserving the property for the benefit of the rightful owner as judicially determined. If other Courts or Tribunals of co-ordinate or exclusive jurisdiction were to permit proceedings to go on independently of the Court which has placed the custody of the property in the hands of the Receiver, there was a likelihood of confusion in the administration of justice and a possible conflict of jurisdiction. If other Courts or Tribunals of co-ordinate or exclusive jurisdiction were to permit proceedings to go on independently of the Court which has placed the custody of the property in the hands of the Receiver, there was a likelihood of confusion in the administration of justice and a possible conflict of jurisdiction. He then referred to the case of (2) Clerk & Ors. v. Chetbar & Ors., (1985) 1 All ER 211. On the basis of that determination, Mr. Mitter claimed that even if the said Company thought that possession was improperly obtained by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments that would be no ground or any excuse for them, for not availing of the remedy in the matter of an application being made to vary the steps as taken. In fact, he claimed that when the said Company had knowledge of the fact of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments even though lately, they should have taken all steps in accordance with law after banding over possession of the flat in question to the learned Commissioner and not otherwise. 25. While on the question as to whether the tenancy right can be transferred or sold, Mr. Mitter referred to and relied on the case of (3) Krishna Das Nandy v. Bidhan Chandra Roy, AIR 1959 Cal 181 , where dealing with section 12(1) provisos (a) and (b) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the Rent Control Act was passed for the protection of tenants. The main part of section 12(1) gave absolute immanity to tenants from eviction and the provisos only mentioned the exceptions to that immunity. 26. In this context, when proviso (a) speaks of transfer by the tenant it refers to a transfer, in substance at least, if not in from also, by the tenant, and it will not apply where the .transfer is by operation of law and the tenant has no hand in it, although, technically or in from, it is and appears to be a transfer by him, apart from holding that where a tenant Company is ordered to be compulsorily wound-up and the tenancy rights are sold by public auction by the official liquidator with the sanction of the Court, the transfer is by the Court or by operation of law. There is no difference in the character of this sale from a sale in execution or any other compulsory sale, to which Provisos (a) and(b) will not apply and the transferee would not be deprived of protection under the Rent Control Act. Further reference was also made by him to the case of (4) Debabrata Mukherjee v. Kalyan Kumar Roy, 1981 (1) Cal LJ 339, where dealing with section 14(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, a Division Bench of this Court has observed that section 14(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has not expressly laid down that a sub-letting in violation of section 14(1) shall create no legal relationship between the tenant of the first degree and his sub-tenant. The effect of section 14(1) is that a sub-letting after the commencement of the Act without the previous consent in writing of the superior landlord is not binding on the superior landlord. The superior landlord has a right under section 13(1)(a) to recover possession by evicting his tenant who has sublet, transferred or assigned the whole or any part of the premises held by him. Sub-section (3) of section 13 has further provided that except as provided in sub-section (2) and (4) a decree or order for delivery of possession of the premises shall be binding on every sub-tenant. Under section 13(2), only those sub-tenants who have given notices under section 16, are required to be made parties to a suit or proceeding for recovery of possession by the superior land lord, When a sub-tenancy is created after the commencement of the 1956 Act, without prior consent of the superior landlord, such a landlord is not required to make such a sub-tenant and if an ejectment decree be passed against the tenant of the first degree, it would be binding on such sub-tenant. In other words, such a sub-tenant has no independent legal status and is not entitled to the benefits of protection against eviction. A tenant who sub-lets in violation of the provisions of section 14(1) of the 1956 Act, is also liable to be punished with fine under section 30(3) of the Act, apart from holding that section 23 of the Contract Act is not applicable to the sub-letting, after the commencement of the 1956 Act, made wit bout prior consent in writing of the landlord. A consideration for a contract of sub-letting between the tenant of the first degree and his sub-tenant does not come within the categories enumerated in section 23 of the Contract Act. Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act, does not really forbid sub-letting by a tenant of the first degree, but it makes unauthorised sub-letting, not binding upon his landlord and also enables the landlord to evict a tenant who has sub-let after commencement of the Act without his consent. The creation of unauthorised sub-letting would not defeat provisions of any law subletting under the general law was not unlawful and in the absence of a contract to the contrary a tenant can sub-let. Under the Rent Control legislation, some classes of sub-tenants have been given protection from eviction. The legal position of those sub-tenants, who do not enjoy the benefits of Rent Control legislation appears to be the same as that under the general law. In the absence of any privity of contract, the unauthorised sub-tenancy is not binding upon the superior landlord who can evict such a sub-tenant in execution of a decree for eviction obtained against the tenant of the first degree. But the mere fact that an unauthorised sub-tenant has been denied the benefits of protection under the Rent Control legislation does not necessarily mean that a sub-Jetting by a tenant is now totally forbidden or that the sub-letting of permitted would defeat the provisions of any law. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has only provided that a sub-letting shall have no effect or against the superior landlord and expresses no intention to prohibit the act of sub-letting merely because the tenant, who sub-lets unauthorisedly may incur punishment, it does not necessarily mean that the sub-letting is forbidden by law and for appreciating the effect of section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act one ought to examine the different provisions of the Act relating to the post Act sub-letting and the .effect of the unauthnrised subletting by a tenant. Further, one should also consider the object for enacting section 14 of the 1956 Act. The 1956 Act has provided that a sub-letting by a tenant after the commencement of the said Act without the consent of his landlord will not be binding on the landlord and shall be void so far as the superior landlord is concerned. Further, one should also consider the object for enacting section 14 of the 1956 Act. The 1956 Act has provided that a sub-letting by a tenant after the commencement of the said Act without the consent of his landlord will not be binding on the landlord and shall be void so far as the superior landlord is concerned. The superior landlord will also be entitled to eject his tenant who after the commencement of the Act was entitled to eject his tenant, who after the commencement of the Act has sub-let without his prior consent in writing. The Act has nowhere provided that the contract between the tenant and his sub-tenant would be null and void and not binding even upon the tenant who has sub-let. It has also been observed that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which is a social legislation primarily for the welfare of the tenants does not express any intention that a sub-tenant who is inducted without the consent of the superior landlord shall have no right as against the person who had inducted him. Similarly, in case it is held that such a subletting is totally null and void, the person inducting him would be unable to recover rent or to recover possession even when the grounds for eviction exist. Therefore, the Court would a void an interpretation of section 14 which would result in such undesirable consequences. Mr. Mitter also pointed out that the above determination was made on following the Full Bench determinations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (5) Shankorlal Gupta v. Jagaditshwar Rao, AIR 1980 AP 181. 27. in addition to the cases as cited by Mr. Mitter, while on the question on the effect or knowledge of the said Company about the possession of the premises in question being taken over by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, reference was also made to the case of (6) Everest Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Stare of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 2304 , where the Sup erne Court has observed while dealing with the filing of a suit against a Receiver appointed under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, that leave must be obtained either prior to filing the suit or during the pendency of the same. It has also been observed that the grant of leave is a rule and refusal is an exception and such rule, is merely to prevent contempt proceedings or threat of contempt. In fact, Mr. Mitter referred to the observations of the Supreme Court to the effect that when a Court puts a Receiver in possession of property, the property comes under court custody, the Receiver being merely an officer or agent of the Court. Any obstruction or interference with the Court's possession sounds in contempt of that Court. Any legal action in respect of that properly is in a sense such an interference and invites the contempt penalty of likely invalidation of the suit or other proceedings. But, if either before starting the action or during its continuance the party takes the leave of the Court, the proceeding may continue to a conclusion on the merits. In the ordinary course, no Court is so prestige-conscious that it will stand in the way of a legitimate legal proceeding for redressal or relief against a Receiver unless the action is totally meritless, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise vitiated by any sister factor. Grant of leave is the rule, refusal the exception. After all, the Court is not, in the usual run of cases, affected by a litigation which settles the rights of parties and the Receiver represents neither party, being an officer of the Court. For this reason, ordinarily the Court accords permission to sue, or to continue. The jurisdiction to grant leave is undoubteds inherent, but not based on black-letter law in the sense of enacted law. Any litigative disturbance of the Court's possession without its permissi0n amounts to contempt of its authority, and the wages of contempt of Court in this jurisdiction may well be vaidability of the whole proceeding. Equally clearly, prior permission of the court appointing the Receiver is not a condition precedent to the enforcement of the cause of action. Nor is it so grave a vice that later leave sought and got before the decree has been passed' will not purge it. If, before the suit terminates, the relevant court is moved and permission to sue or to prosecute further is granted, the requirement of law is fulfilled. Of course, faliure to secure such leave till the end of the lis may prove fatal. It was also pointed out by Mr. If, before the suit terminates, the relevant court is moved and permission to sue or to prosecute further is granted, the requirement of law is fulfilled. Of course, faliure to secure such leave till the end of the lis may prove fatal. It was also pointed out by Mr. Mitter that on the basis of the decisions as cited hereinbefore, transfer of a tenancy in a proceedings like this, is not forbidden and a Court can direct such transfer or put up for sale, the property in question. It was also claimed by him and that too, after placing the order dated 27th September, 1983, as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanchaita matters, that by such order, the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments has been empowered to take charge of all the assets of Sanchaita Investments and that according to him would also include the tenancy as in this case. 28. In the absence of Mr. Jayanta Mitter, Mr. Debal Banerjee continued with the submissions in reply for sometime and thereafter, Mr. Jayanta Mitter took up the reply and placed the Supreme Court orders and so also the order of attachment as issued in the instant case. It was claimed by him, that since no notice to the said Company was given by the learned Commissioner. Sanchaita Investments, before taking over possession and even after taking over possession, the said Company i.e., the landlord was not intimated by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, about such taking over possession, so there is no doubt or any dispute that the said Company could not have any knowledge, intimation or notice of such taking over of possession by the learned Commissioner. He further pointed out that even on the basis of the General Diary Entries as annexed or disclosed, the case as sought to be made out by the learned Commissioner, cannot be established, as there is nothing to show on record or to prove by any legal evidence, that the learned Commissioner had applied for the necessary help and assistance from the Police authorities. In fact, Mr. Mitter doubted the genuineness of the concerned G. D. Entries and submitted that such Entries were made in a most unusual manner and fashion and really, the basis of such G. D. Entries or the backgrounds of the same have not been duly disclosed. Mr. In fact, Mr. Mitter doubted the genuineness of the concerned G. D. Entries and submitted that such Entries were made in a most unusual manner and fashion and really, the basis of such G. D. Entries or the backgrounds of the same have not been duly disclosed. Mr. Mitter also submitted that when admittedly, no intimation was given to the said Company by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, how it can be established that the said Company had knowledge of the said fact of taking over possession of the premises in question by the learned Commissioner. On such submissions, he claimed that the determinations in Everest Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra), will be distinguishable and not applicable in the facts of this case. On a reference to that determination, Mr. Mitter further pointed out that there was knowledge, but here, such knowledge is absent. 29. Further to his submissions on the bona ides of the concerned G. D. Entries, Mr. Mitter indicated that no reliance can be put on them, since there was no requisition for such a huge number of Police personal as would appear from the G.D. Entries and in fact, there was no requisition at all and possession was not given, as would appear from the Entries, in the presence of the witnesses. That apart, Mr. Mitter commented that the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, who is expected to he well aware of the provisions of law, should have recorded the fact of taking over possession by him, through communication and it is also significant to know that even after taking over such possession, the learned Commissioner has not either made any publication or any advertisements and as such also, the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1977 SC 2304 , will not be applicable in this case and the case of Clerk & Ors v. Chetber & Ors. (Supra), will not really come to the aid of the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. In support of his submissions, Mr. (Supra), will not really come to the aid of the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mitter further referred to the case of Kanhaiyalal v. D. R. Banaji (Supra), and submitted that in view of the admitted fact that the said Company had no knowledge of the notice of attachment either directly from the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments or constructively from any of its acts or actions, so the said determination would really help the said Company and not the learned Commissioner. 30. Arguments were advanced at the Bar, that if a person, here in this case, the said Company, when takes any action which would be in the nature of any interference with any act or action of a public officer viz., the learned Commissioner, without the leave of the Court, then he would expose himself to proceedings for contempt. On the facts as stated hereinbefore and so also the defence of the said Company as indicated, Mr. Mitter contended that the said Company or its Directors and authorities cannot be said to be in contempt as alleged and for any of their actions. He, in. support of his submissions, referred to the observations of the Bombay High Court in the case of (7) Kilachand Devchand & Co. v. Ajodhyaprasad Sukhanand & Ors., AIR 1934 Bombay 452, where amongst others, it has been observed that it is only necessary in a case of interference in the possession of receiver appointed by Court for the applicant to show that the respondents were aware of the appointment of the receiver and that to their knowledge the receiver had taken possession of this particular property with which the respondents had attempted to interefere. If the two facts are established by evidence, it is immaterial to consider whether the order appointing the receiver was served on the respondents or not. In fact, on a reference to the affidavit of the said Company it was sought to be established by Mr. Mitter that they had no knowledge of the fact of possession, as was alleged to have been taken, of the premises in question by the learned Commissioner. It was also contended by Mitter that possession in the instant case, was not really taken under or in terms of the orders as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 31. Mitter that they had no knowledge of the fact of possession, as was alleged to have been taken, of the premises in question by the learned Commissioner. It was also contended by Mitter that possession in the instant case, was not really taken under or in terms of the orders as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 31. He reiterated his submissions that a tenancy right as in this case, was not attachable and in support of such submissions, he referred to the case of (8) Krishna Gopal Saha v. Niryananda Saha & Ors., 87 CWN 317, where a Division Bench of this Bourt, while considering the basic requirements of section 60(1), clause (kc) of the Civil Procedure Code and the fact of exemptions or if the tenancy right of the judgment debior in a shop in that case can be attached/sold, as observed that the petition of objection under section 47 of the Code in respect of a commercial execution case was rejected by the executing court. The order was challenge in revision urging that under the special provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act the tenant's right to transfer or assign the tenancy or any part of it being barred by law the order for sale of such a tenancy was contrary to law in view of sections 14(1) and 30 of the said Act and has held that sub-section (1) of section 60 of the Code provides what can be attached or sold in execution of a decree. Having provided as such the legislature provided certain exceptions set out in the different clauses of the proviso. Hence, the basic requirement of section 60(1) of the Code has to be fulfilled before the property in question can be attached or sold in execution of a decree, apart from indicating that exemptions contemplate that they would otherwise be liable to be attached and/or sold under sub-section (1) but for the specific protection given by the exemption clauses. But a property, which does not come within the purview of section 60 (1) of the Code, cannot be attached and/or sold not because it is exempted but because it is not capable of being attached or sold in law. But a property, which does not come within the purview of section 60 (1) of the Code, cannot be attached and/or sold not because it is exempted but because it is not capable of being attached or sold in law. One of the basic requirements of section 60(1) of the Code is that the saleable property must belong to the judgment-debtor and that "he has a right to dispose which he may exercise for his own benefit". It has been specifically indicated that judgment-debtor's right to transfer or assign being barred by section 14(1) of the West Bengal Premises' Tenancy Act, he has no disposing power which be can exercise for his own benefit. It was claimed by Mr. Mitter that on the facts of this case, the determinations in the case of Debabrata Mukherjee v. Kalyan Kumar Roy (Supra), would not be applicable, rather they are distinguishable and to establish such submissions, reference was made by Mr. Mitter to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the report. 32. Thereafter, Mr. Mitter dealt with the case of Krishna Das Nandy v. Bidhan Chandra Roy (Supra), which he pointed out was on pre 1956 Act and indicated that there has since been a change in the language of the statute and when that determination was made, section 14 of the present Act was not there and as such also, it was claimed that the said determination would not really apply in this case. To augment his submissions on the effect of taking over possession of the premises in question by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, without any notice to the said Company, reference was made by Mr. Mitter to the case of (9) M/s. Parrasam Harnand Rao v. M/s. Shanti Prasad Narindar Kumar Jain & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 1655 . The said case was dealing with section 14(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the eviction of a tenant on the ground of sub-letting or assignment and whether in such action, an involuntary sale would be included. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the language of section 14(b) is wide enough, not only to include any sub-lease but even an assignment or any other mode by which possession of the tenanted premises is parted. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the language of section 14(b) is wide enough, not only to include any sub-lease but even an assignment or any other mode by which possession of the tenanted premises is parted. In view of the wide amplitude of section 14(b), it can be held that it does not exclude even an involuntary sale. In the instant case it was undoubtedly a voluntary sale which clearly fell within the mischief of section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Assuming that the sale of the Official Liquidator was an involuntary sale then it undoubtedly became an assignment as provided for by section 14(b) of the Act, Consequently the tenant was liable to be evicted. 33. As indicated earlier, Mr. Jayanta Mitter claimed that the attachment in this case was unauthorised even under the Supreme Court orders and it was also indicated by him that was it net strange that the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments took possession of the flats even prior to attachment?, It was his specific submission that the said Commissioner could not authorisedly attach the tenancy right as involved and according to Mr. Miner, the learned Commissioner was not also above law and he was bound by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. To establish his submissions, reference was made by Mr. Mitter to the case of (10) Dhirendra Nath Neogi v. Pronab Kumar Neogi & Ors., 61 CWN 887. It appears that on the 22nd December, 1954, an order was made by the High Court that the Official Receiver do sell, inter olio, the business of Binode & Co., and the stocks and other assets of the said business. Mitter to the case of (10) Dhirendra Nath Neogi v. Pronab Kumar Neogi & Ors., 61 CWN 887. It appears that on the 22nd December, 1954, an order was made by the High Court that the Official Receiver do sell, inter olio, the business of Binode & Co., and the stocks and other assets of the said business. On the 25th January, 1957 the Official Receiver held the sale directed by the previous order and sold the stocks and assets of the business of Binode & Co, The question that arose in the present application was whether the monthly tenancy of Binode & Co., and/or the right of occupation in respect of the shop room in premises No. 13, Dalhousie Square had passed at the sale, It was an admitted fact that the monthly tenancy in respect of the shop room was terminated by the owners of the premises by a notice to quit expiring at the end of October, 1956 and on such facts, it has been held that having regard to section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the sale held by the Official Receiver could not and did not pass the: rights of Binode & Co. in the tenancy or its right to retain possession of the premises and had the business and assets of Binode & Co., been sold under the order dated the 22nd December, 1954 while the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 was in force and before the monthly tenancy of Binode & Co., had been terminated by a notice to quit the sale would have passed the rights of Binode & Co. in respect of the monthly tenancy held by it in respect of the shop room. 34. Further reference was made by Mr. Mitter to the case of (11) Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna & Anr. v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay & Anr. ( 1983 4 SCC 269 . It would appear that a chit fund company had its office in the premises of the appellants-landlords on a short term lease basis. The Company Court ordered winding-up of the tenant-company and immediately thereupon the business of the company came to a standstill. The Official Liquidator took possession of the premises and sought a direction from the Company Court whether the premises shoul be let out on least or licence. The Company Court ordered winding-up of the tenant-company and immediately thereupon the business of the company came to a standstill. The Official Liquidator took possession of the premises and sought a direction from the Company Court whether the premises shoul be let out on least or licence. The Court directed that the premises be given on caretaker basis after obtaining a proper document on a compensation not less than Rs. 2,250 per month. Accordingly, the Liquidator entered into an agreement with the Court's permission and gave possession of the premises to the second respondent. The appellants took out Judge's summon praying for a direction to the Liquidator to terminate the caretaker's agreement and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the appellant. The Company Judge rejected the prayer and a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal. Allowing the appeal with special leave of the appellant-landlords the Supreme Court and it has been held that the Company Judge erred in permitting the Liquidator to bold on possession of the premises not needed for efficiently carrying on winding-up proceedings. The only course open to him was to direct the Liquidator to surrender possession to landlords and save recurring liability, apart from holding that under section 457 of the Companies Act the Liquidator with the sanction of the Court can carryon the business of the Company only to the extent that such carrying on of the business is necessary for the beneficial winding-up of the Company. The business of the Company having come to a stand still there was no question of the business of the Company to be carried on by the Liquidator and that too for the beneficial winding up of the Company. Giving premises on lease, licence or under caretaker's agreement was not the business of the Company. If some other business of the Company was to be carried on in exercise of power under section 457(1)(b), the use of the office premises would have been necessary for carrying on the business of the Company. But such was not the case, and that on facts, the company was a statutory tenant and if it did not any more require the use of the premises, the provisions of the Rent Act and especially sections 13 and 15 completely prohibit giving the possession of the premises on licence or on sub-lease. But such was not the case, and that on facts, the company was a statutory tenant and if it did not any more require the use of the premises, the provisions of the Rent Act and especially sections 13 and 15 completely prohibit giving the possession of the premises on licence or on sub-lease. A caretaker's agreement appears to be an euphemism for collecting compensation which is nothing but the charge for use and occupation of the premises exclusively by the second respondent. The Liquidator did not need the use of the premises. The Court should not lend its aid to flout the provisions of the Rent Act so as to earn money by unfair and impermissible use of the premises. Therefore, the caretaker's agreement cannot be supported on the ground that it would fetch a steady income which would have gone towards mitigating the hardships of the creditors and members of the Company. While on his submissions that the learned Commissioner was not above law, further reference was made by Mr. Mitter to the case of (12) M/s, General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. M. A. Khader (dead) etc., AIR 1986 SC 1218 , where the transferee-company which has been put in possession of the tenanted premises by the transferor company which was tenant of the premises cannot be deemed to be tenant under the Act on the mere plea that the tenancy right including the leashold interest in the tenanted premises have come to be transferred and vested in the transferee Company on the basis of the order of the High Court on sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of company made under sections 391 and 324 of the Companies Act. Moreover when clause of the rent agreement executed by the transferor Company expressly prohibited subletting of the tenanted premises without the express consent of the landlord, the transfer of the interest of the transferor company including possession in respect of the tenanted premises under the order of the High Court without obtaining the written permission or consent of the landlord could be said to have been transferred to the transferee Company in contravention of the provisions of the Act as well as in contravention of the terms and conditions of the said rent agreement thereby making the transferee Company liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises. There cannot really be any doubt or dispute that the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, even inspite of the clothing of powers by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, is not above law and he was really bound by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in this case. It must also be remembered that the attachment in this case was not of the properties of a judgment debtor. 35. By the order dated 4th May, 1983, as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, a retired District Judge belonging to the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, who was nominated by the learned Chief Justice of this Court, was authorised to take charge of all the assets, documents and papers of the firm called Sanchaita Investments and of its agents, sub-agents, transferors and benamdars and thereafter, by another order dated 27th September, 1983, the said learned Commissioner was authorised to attach such assets and properties which, in his prima facie opinion, are of the ownership of the firm Sanchaita Investments, or of the ownership of any of its partners, with other anciliary powers. Such being the position, on consideration of the terms of those orders, it cannot be held and observed that the attachment in this case, of the tenancy in question, which the learned Commissioner prima facie opined to be belonging to the Sanchaita Investments, subject of course to the further determination on the pleadings which we should have to make viz., whether a tenancy right can be attached, the order of the Supreme Court or the terms thereof are sufficient to include some rights and obligations of a tenancy in some appropriate cases. Thus, the submissions of Mr. Aninda Mitter on this point and not those of Mr. Jayanta Mitter, should succeed, to the extent as indicated hereinbefore. 36. The Directors of Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd., were not doubt and even though the same was incorporated earlier than the incorportion of Sanchaita Investments, were connected with the Sanchaita Investments and there is also no doubt that M/s. Sunlight Films, which was a known limb of Sanchaita Investments or has been found to so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was allowed to occupy and use the tenancy. Such fact, coupled with the further admitted fact that the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. started another business at the same premises under the name and style of Sanchaita Savings Scheme (P) Ltd., would go a long way to prima facie prove and establish the connection of the said Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. with Sanchaita Investments or their involvement with the Sanchaita Investments. In fact, because of the conduct of Anirban Chit Fund (P) Ltd. in this case, no other findings would be reasonable and possible. Thus, from the attending circumstances or on consideration of such circumstances and conduct as indicated hereinbefore, we conclude that Sanchaita Investments was behind the said Anirban Chit Fund(P) Ltd. or ultimately, they were the main corpus and were really controlling the affairs in the name of the said Anirban Chit Funds (P) Ltd., even though their incorporation was earlier than the initiation of Sanchaita Investments. Thus, if the answer to the real question in this case as indicated by us earlier viz, if a tenancy right can be attached, is in the affirmative and against the said Company, then, we shall have no other alternative but to reject the objection as filed by the said Company and direct the attachment to continue. But, before we take up for consideration the said point, we think we should deal with the other points as raised. 37. We have indicated earlier the conflicting claims of the learned Commissioner. Sanchaita Investments and that of the said Company, over the taking over of possession of the flat in question. From the pleadings it appeared that the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments has claimed to have taken possession of the flat in question, on making due inventories and that too with Police help and assistance on 16th April, 1985 and thereafter, he in the presence of his men and certain outsiders, put his padlocks. It is also true that no person was mentioned either in the Police Report as disclosed or anywhere, to have witnessed the act or fact of taking over possession by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments and that apart, after such taking over of possession, the said learned Commissioner has not taken any steps, excepting his claim of putting the padlocks, for-notifying such fact of taking over possession by him to anyone including She landlords i.e., the said Company. It was really expected that the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, being a very Senior Judicial Officer, should have taken some steps to inform, intimate and notify his act of taking over possession to the said Co., if not tendering the rents of arrears of rent to them or he could have at least hung up a notice board indicating such fact of taking over possession by him in the premises in question. For such inaction on the part of the learned Commissioner, there is some justification in the claims of the said Company that they had no direct notice or knowledge of the said fact of taking over possession of the premises in question by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. Such required and necessary knowledge may also be obtained and achieved indirectly and from other source and constructively and in fact, such claim of the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments in this case, which again, we feel, has some substance, as from the attending circumstances and the way and in the manner, possession was claimed to have been taken through Police help and assistance, it is very difficult to accept that the said Company will have no knowledge or notice of such facts from their men and Dwarans, who were admittedly there in the premises or from other tenants and (heir men, who were also present. 38. Such being the position, the said Company should have, after 12th April, 1985, obtained the leave of the Court concerned, before proceeding with Ejectment Suit No. 843 of 1985 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, which was filed on or about 10th October, 1985. The necessary leave not having been taken, when the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, claimed to be in possession, the said Company or their authorities, not only exposed themselves to the rigours of contempt, but the suit itself was not competent and consequently, the ex parte decree as obtained or the possession as said to have been received though execution of the same, has also become incompetent. Event though, Me. Event though, Me. Jayanta Mitter argued that the G.D. Entries were sham and not proper, we do not find any legal evidence in support of such submissions or to disbelieve and discard the concerned G.D. Entries and which again were said by the Officer-in-Charge in question who appeared in Court, in obedience to a sub poena, that they were maintained and recorded duly in the Official course of business. The Ejectment Suit in question, was filed on or about 10th October, 1985 and the same was decreed ex parte on or about 4th July, 1986 and on the basis thereof or in execution of the said decree, vacant possession without any obstruction was received on 30th July, 1986. Thus, the wit was decreed within about 9 months and 6 days and possession in execution of the decree was obtained within 26 days thereafter. Such expedition in obtaining a decree in Ejectment Suit and to receive possession on the basis thereof is no doubt creditable, but such expedition creates some suspicion and that too in the present setup and workings of the Courts. This is not all. The acts and actions of the said Company create greater suspicion on lack of bona fides, when we find that immediately on obtaining possession on 30th July, 1986, Room No.9 was partitioned in the portions and on the 1st August, 1986. they were let out to the tenants, whose particulars thereof we have given hereinbefore and it is also strange that those tenancies in the area in question, where accomodation is very difficult to be obtained without any advertisements or negotiations, were let out without any such steps The tenants in this case were really lucky to get the accommodations without any endeavour. In fact, they were really available at hand. These acts or actions or and by the said Company suggest that they were really trying to shield the real happenings and were perhaps trying to fork out or create evidence for establishing that they were in possession of the premises in question and not the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. The hastend steps as taken by the said Company in the instant case establish anything else but bona fide. The hastend steps as taken by the said Company in the instant case establish anything else but bona fide. It is also strange that the tenants who suffered the concerned ex parte decrees could have preferred appeal, but such appeals have not been filed and valuable tenancy rights at the place in question, where it is very difficult to get any accommodation, have been allowed to be lost. This part itself is enough, in our view, to establish collusion between the parties and goes a long way to hold against the bona fides of the transactions. On consideration of the relevant facts and aspect in this case, we find that the title on the question of bona fide, would be heavier and in favour of the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments that the said Company. 39. Even our findings as above, would not be enough to answer the real question in issue in either way. Now, we shall take up such question for consideration viz, whether a tenancy right is attachable? While on the point, the provisions of section 60(1)(kc) and the proviso thereunder of the Civil Procedure Code would be of relevant consideration and they were referred to by Mr. Layanta Mitter. There is also no doubt that the tenancy in question was governed by the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The terms, scope and effect of attachment, in the case of Krishna Gopal Saha v. Nityananda Saha (Supra), was considered practically en that case, the facts whereof, were claimed to be a kin to this case. Thus, the law on the point was considered by another Division Bench of this Court, the particulars whereof we have indicated earlier. We shall have to consider whether the findings of the said Division Bench case appropriately applies in the facts of this case. The provisions of the Code as indicated hereinbefore, makes provisions for attachment or more particularly, what could be attached or sold in execution of a decree. Excepting the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India there is really no decree in this case. Having provided as above, the Legislature has further provided certain exceptions as set out in the different sub-clauses of section 60(1) of the Code. Excepting the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India there is really no decree in this case. Having provided as above, the Legislature has further provided certain exceptions as set out in the different sub-clauses of section 60(1) of the Code. Thus, on the basis of the observations of the Division Bench determination as mentioned above, we also agree that the basic requirements of section 60(1) of the Code will have to be fulfilled, before the property in question, can be attached or sold in execution of a Decree. On the basis of exemptions, a property which does not come within the purview of section 60(1) of the Code, cannot be attached and/or sold, not because the same is exempted, but because the same is not capable of being attached or sold in law. 40. We have already indicated above that although originally the tenancy was created by Anirban Chit Fund much before Sanchaita was formally born, yet after Sanchaita came into existence, it was practically the controlling corpus of the entire business, which was being carried on in the disputed premises. The-tenancy also was really a tenancy of Sanchaita in the benami of Anirban Chit Fund. Such concept of benami tenancy is not unknown in our country. The partners of Sanchaita, some of whom were even formally controlling the affairs of the Anirban Chit Fund, had, as appears from the materials produced before us, full authority, to deal with the rights pertaining to the said tenancy. No doubt, section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates properties which are attachable, but it is also well-settled by now that such enumeration is not exhaustive. The test of a property's liability to attachment as laid down by the highest judiciary of the country has already been indicated by us hereinabove. Even applying the said test, the tenancy right in the instant case becomes attachable. The bar pleaded by Mr. Jayanta Mitter on the basis of the provisions of section 14(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act does not have much relevance for determinations of liability for attachment of such tenancies as it does not render any disposition by the tenant absolutely void. But, may only create and ground for eviction. The bar pleaded by Mr. Jayanta Mitter on the basis of the provisions of section 14(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act does not have much relevance for determinations of liability for attachment of such tenancies as it does not render any disposition by the tenant absolutely void. But, may only create and ground for eviction. It is significant to note that the tenancy in the instant case was not a residential tenancy and as such the exemption granted with regard to such residential tenancy from attachment, section 60(1)(kc) of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply. Upon consideration of the attending facts and circumstances as discussed by us hereinabove, we are not prepared to accept the position that Sanchaita was not accepted by the landlord as tenant. Sanchaita, therefore, was either a tenant itself or Anirban at best became a benamdar of its tenancy. Either of the said two conclusions render the order of attachment passed by the Commissioner valid and legal in terms of the powers granted to him by the Supreme Court of India and render such tenancy liable to sell. The above proposition of law derive their validity from the principles laid down in the case of (13) Ramesh Himmatlal Shah v. Harsook Jadavji Joshi, AIR, 1975 SC 1470. The facts in the said case bear a very close analogy to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court in categorical terms laid down therein, that a remote contingency of non-recognition of a purchaser in an auction sale of the said tenancy right would not make the particular right of the delinquent tenant in the flat non-attachable or non-saleable. It was further laid down that right to occupation of flat as property, both attachable and saleable and specific non inclusion of a particular species of property under section 60 is not of any consequence if it is saleable otherwise. It may be pertinent to note that the later decision relied on by Mr. Jayanta Mitter reported in AIR 1980 SC 1655 did not take notice of the aforesaid decision. Thus, we find that all the points as urged by Mr. Jayanta Mitter fail and so on our findings, we confirm the order of attachment and direct the Commissioner to put up the flat for public auction. Jayanta Mitter reported in AIR 1980 SC 1655 did not take notice of the aforesaid decision. Thus, we find that all the points as urged by Mr. Jayanta Mitter fail and so on our findings, we confirm the order of attachment and direct the Commissioner to put up the flat for public auction. The Commissioner is also authorised to give vacant possession of the flat in question by evicting the existing occupants, whose claim of tenancy we have disbelieved in the foregoing part of our judgment, by execution of this order of ours and if necessary, with police help. Prayer for operation of the stay of this order is granted for four weeks. Mookherjee, J.: I agree.