S. C. Jain ( 1 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to these twoapplications being LA. 9737/92 and 10514/92 are that Batlihoi and Co. , herein,after called the applicant took on rent property 142, Golf Links New Delhiconsisting of first floor with terrace, barasti, one servant quarter and garagetogether with fixtures and fittings for a period of three years on a monthlyrent of Rs. 1500. 00 vide lease agreement dated 1. 3. 1977 from Shri N. K. Verma,owner-landlord. After expiry of three years, the applicant continued to betenant in the said property on the same terms and conditions, except thatrate of rent was increased from Rs. 1500. 00 to R. s. 2,200. 00. Rent of these premises stands paid upto August, 1993. These premises have been used as guesthouse of the applicant. ( 2 ) AS per the averments made in the plaint, on 15. 7. 1992 at 2 p. m. the owner-landlord brought 30 bad elements/goondas to the tenanted premisesand started throwing the furniture and other valuable belongings of theapplicant by taking law in their hands. The caretakers of the plaintiff whoobjected to the illegal actions of the defendant and his accomplices, were alsothrashed and thrown out of gates on the road. The defendant has takenaway/removed most of the costly furniture, almirahs and valuable articlescosting over Rs. 3 lakhs to some unknown place and the same are not trace-able. The plaintiff has been forcibly and illegally dispossessed from thetenanted premises on 15. 7. 92 without recourse to the legal proceedings underthe provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. ( 3 ) ON these grounds this suit for possession under Section 6 of thespecific Relief Act for restoration of possession of the tenanted premises hasbeen filed by the plaintiff company. ( 4 ) IN this suit these two applications have been filed seeking interimrelief for restoration of the possession of the tenanted premises and restraining the defendants from selling, transferring or alienating or parting withpossession of these premises to anyone else. Prayer has also been made toappoint a receiver with direction to take into his charge, custody and possessionthe tenanted premises including the goods/articles lying and/or fixedtherein and to keep the premises under lock and key till the disposal of thecase. ( 5 ) A Local Commissioner was appointed on 21. 7. 92 for making aninventory of the goods lying in the disputed premises. ( 5 ) A Local Commissioner was appointed on 21. 7. 92 for making aninventory of the goods lying in the disputed premises. The Local Commissioner submilted his report after inspecting the premises in the presenceof the Counsel for the parties and the defendant. As per the report of thelocal Commissioner, among the articles like air-conditioner, stabiliser, chair,almirah, etc. , were found in the tenanted premises and most of these articleswere found belonging to the applicant-plaintiff. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that though theapplicant has been physically dispossessed from the tenanted premises out theyare still in legal possession. The plaintiff is a limited company and questionof voluntary surrender of the tenancy rights without any resolution of thecompany could not have taken place. He also pointed out that the rent ofthese premises stood paid upto August, 1993 i. e. , on the request of thedefendant vide letter dated 17. 8. 90 the plaintiff paid Rs. 79. 200. 00i. e. , threeyears rent in advance, as according to the defendant he was going to USAfor bye pass surgery. Receipt of rent upto August, 1993 stands admitted bythe defendant. The story of surrender of the premises on 15. 7. 92 as alleged iscooked up. The report was lodged with the police on the next day aftertaking instructions from the company, the fact that the air conditioner andother fixtures are still fitted in the premises disproves the story of surrenderingof the tenancy. He also drew my attention to the affidavits of Shri B. M. Lal, Director of the plaintiff company, affidavit of Nirmal Bhogi Lal Managing Director of the plaintiff , affidavit of Shri S. K. . Tandon, Regional Commercial Manager of the plaintiff, Jassi Ram caretaker and Jagdish Chandarya another employee of the plaintiff in support of his contention that therewas no surrender of the tenancy on 15. 7. 92 or at any other time. ( 7 ) IN view of these facts the Counsel submitted that the defendantcannot be allowed to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premiseswhen their costly items like air conditioners etc are still lying there. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the defendant countered the argument of thecounsel for the plaintiff and stated that this is a case of voluntary surrenderof tenancy rights. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the defendant countered the argument of thecounsel for the plaintiff and stated that this is a case of voluntary surrenderof tenancy rights. He admitted that the rent was paid upto August, 93 butpleaded that the possession was handed over to the defendant and a chequefor Rs. 40. 500. 00 drawn on Union Bank of India was handed over to therepresentative of the plaintiff. According to him no written document wasexecuted regarding the surrender of tenancy right but it was under the instructions of all the responsible officers of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) HE drew my attention towards an interim order passed by DBIin appeal No. , FAO (OS) 116/92 S. N. Khosla v. Metal Box wherein acceptedpossession of the appellant/landlord of the tenanted premises, status quo wasordered to be maintained. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel also argued that neither the provisions of Order39 Rules 1-2 Civil Procedure Code Order 40 Civil Procedure Code are not attracted in the present case inasmuchas the defendant is admittedly in possession of the tenanted premises. Someof his goods are also lying there. The plaintiff himself alleges to be out ofpossession. Therefore, order of status quo should be maintained. However,learned Counsel concedes. that his client is prepared to give an undertakingthat he would not transfer, alienate or part with possession of these premisesand will maintain status quo of this property but he strongly opposed theprayer made by the plaintiff applicant that possession of the premises berestored to him or a receiver be appointed or these premises may be sealed tillthe disposal of this suit. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the defendent areceivercan be appointed only where the property is likely to be wasted and circumstances are of such a nature as to make it just and convenient to appoint areceiver. According to him. it is a case where the plaintiff handed over vacantpossession of the premises to the defendant himself after surrendering tenancyrights. ( 12 ) HE relied upon two decisions, one of Ajmer High Court reportedin AIR (36) 49 Ajmer page 11 and the other of Sind High Court, AIR 1937sind 161 in support of his contention that in a suit under Section 9 of thespecific Relief Act no receiver can be appointed for collection of the mesneprofit. ( 12 ) HE relied upon two decisions, one of Ajmer High Court reportedin AIR (36) 49 Ajmer page 11 and the other of Sind High Court, AIR 1937sind 161 in support of his contention that in a suit under Section 9 of thespecific Relief Act no receiver can be appointed for collection of the mesneprofit. According to the learned Counsel, this suit has been filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession and it is not on the basis of titleand therefore no receiver should be appointed in this case. ( 13 ) AS far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not indispute that the plaintiff applicant was inducted as atenant in the suit premises by the defendant vide lease agreement dated 1. 3. 1977 on a monthly rentof Rs. 1500. 00 and the lease continued and the rate of rent was increased tors. 2200. 00. It is also not disputed that on the request of the defendantthree years advance rent of the tenanted premises was given upto August,1993. There is no written document showing that the tenancy was surrendered as alleged. On the prima facie ground, from the circumstances,which are on the record, it is very difficult to presume that the plaintiffvoluntarily surrendered the possession of the premises on 15. 7. 92. Theaffidavits filed by the plaintiff in support of its case clearly establish that it isnot a case of voluntary surrender of tenancy right. ( 14 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant that acheque for Rs. 40,500. 00 towards the balance unutilised amount of rent washanded over to the Chief Manager has not been proved on record. It has notbeen stated that this cheque was ever encashed or credited to the account ofthe plaintiff. Shri S. K. Tandon, Chief Manager of the plaintiff has stated in hisaffidavit that no such cheque was received by him. Such a plea does not helpthe defendant in any way. The other fact which goes against the defendantis that as per the report of the Local Commissioner most of the goods foundin the tenanted premises were that of the plaintiff meaning thereby that had itbeen a case of surrender of tenancy, the goods belonging to the plaintiff wouldnot have been there. The other fact which goes against the defendantis that as per the report of the Local Commissioner most of the goods foundin the tenanted premises were that of the plaintiff meaning thereby that had itbeen a case of surrender of tenancy, the goods belonging to the plaintiff wouldnot have been there. These premises were used by the company as a guesthouse and nobody was residing in these premises except the caretakers whoused to look after the premises. The caretakers were thrown out by thedefendant along with some of the articles belonging to the plaintiff. ( 15 ) WITHOUT going into the merits of the case in detail and withoutarriving at any definite conclusion, on prima facie grounds, I am not inclined tohold at this stage that it is a case of voluntary surrender of tenancy right ofthe plaintiff. No doubt it is true and it is also on the record that the plaintiffhas been physically dispossessed from the disputed premises, but this fact alonedoes not mean that the defendant should be allowed to take advantage of hisown wrong. ( 16 ) INTERIM order passed by DB-I in S. N. Khosla v. Metal Box reliedupon by the defendant, does not help him in the present circumstances of thecase. There is no dispute about the legal proposition that every case is decidedon the facts of that very case. The facts of the case before DB-I were differentfrom the facts of the present case. That case was for permanent injunctionand this case is for possession under the Specific Relief Act. In the premisesin question goods of the plaintiff/applicant were admittedly found lying. Theplaintiff might have been dispossessed physically but this cannot be said thathis legal possession has also been disturbed. Tenancy rights are legal rightsand cannot be snatched away in such a way. This order of DB-I does nothelp the defendant in this case. ( 17 ) REGARDING the other two decisions relied upon by the learnedcounsel for the defendant, these are also not helpful to the defendant. Inthose cases question was regarding collection of mesne profit and in those circumstances it was held that no Court can appoint any receiver or commissioner. There cannot be any dispute regarding the legal proposition thatunder the existing circmstances an order appointing receiver can be made orthat injunction order can also be passed. In the case of Meghji Jetha Shallv. Inthose cases question was regarding collection of mesne profit and in those circumstances it was held that no Court can appoint any receiver or commissioner. There cannot be any dispute regarding the legal proposition thatunder the existing circmstances an order appointing receiver can be made orthat injunction order can also be passed. In the case of Meghji Jetha Shallv. Kalyanji Nanji Shah, AIR 1987 B 273 in a suit under Section 6 of thespecific Relief Act, appointment of the receiver was upheld as legal. ( 18 ) KEEPING in view the circumstances on record, on the prima facieground I am of the view that in such circumstances the defendant cannot beallowed to make use of the tenanted premises in which valuable articles belonging to the plaintiff are still lying. . In these circumstances. I find it a fit casewhere the tenanted premises comprising of first floor with terrace. Thebarasti. one servant quarter and garage in 142 Golf Links. New Delhi togetherwith fixtures and fittings and articles lying therein can be sealed with the sealof the Registrar of this Court during the pendency of the suit with optionthat if either of the parties wants to take out any article be can do so aftergetting permission from the Court. I fix Rs. 5000. 00 as fee of the Registrar tobe paid by the plaintiff in the first instance. The Registrar shall keep thepremises under lock and key with the Seal of the Court and the key shall bekept in the custody of the Court till further orders. ( 19 ) THE defendants are also restrained From transferring, alienatingor parting with possession in any manner or from creating third party interestin the tenanted premises till the disposal of the suit. Both the Indian Administrative Service are disposed of accordingly. ( 20 ) PLEADINGS are complete. To be listed before the Deputy Registrarfor filing documents, admission/denial on 15. 1 1. 1992 and thereafter the matterto be listed in the Court for framing of issues on 7. 12. 1992. ( 21 ) KEEPING in view the nature of the suit under Section 6 of thespecific Relief Act. it is ordered that the suit shall be completed within sixmonths from today.