ORDER : Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 25.1.2018 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Agra in Miscellaneous Case No.199 of 1984 arising out of Original Suit No.76 of 1949, whereby application 4Ga filed by the respondent-M/s Gambhimal Pandya Private Ltd was allowed and it was directed that the petitioner who is son of Late Prem Dutt Paliwal shall hand over vacant possession of Bungalow no.4, Municipal No.21/05, Jeoni Mandi, Agra, i.e premises in dispute. 2. Heard Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Other respondents are proforma respondents and have no concern with the dispute, in hand. 3. The dispute relates to John Mills, Bungalow no.4 bearing Municipal no.21/05, Jeoni Mandi, Agra. The petitioner herein is admittedly son of Prem Dutt Paliwal who was given licence of the Bungalow no.4 by the receiver appointed in Original Suit No.76 of 1949 filed by Loon Karan Sethiya. 4. The present proceeding arises out of an application moved by the respondent no.1, M/s Gambhirmal Pandya for recovery of possession of the disputed Bungalow from Prem Dutt Paliwal, who was in occupation of the said Bungalow no.4 as a licencee of the receiver. After death of Prem Dutt Paliwal, the petitioner herein, namely, Devendra Dutt Paliwal was substituted being his heir. 5. This case has a chequered history. 6. Certain events occurred prior to the order impugned, in brief, are necessary to be noted hereunder. There was group of Mills comprising of three cotton spinning mills, the flour mill, several Bungalows and other properties, and which were compendiously known as “John Mills” located in Jeoni Mandi, Agra. All these properties belonged to the family of A.E.John, and at one point of time they came to be jointly owned by I.E. John, M.I. John and Deris Marzano and others. In the course of time, certain strangers came to be introduced. Seth Munni Lal Mehra and Hiralal Patni had purchased 19/40 share in the John Mill and its properties. Suit no.31 of 1940 was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra by the previous owner and partners of John Mills. In the course of time, certain strangers came to be introduced. Seth Munni Lal Mehra and Hiralal Patni had purchased 19/40 share in the John Mill and its properties. Suit no.31 of 1940 was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra by the previous owner and partners of John Mills. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent no.1 M/s Gambhirmal Pandya Pvt Ltd purchased undivided 8/40 share of the plaintiffs of the said Suit No.31 of 1940 and was substituted in place of the original plaintiffs, a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 29.10.1945. 7. A new firm was constituted by the John, Munni Lal Mehra, Hiralal Patni and Gambhirmal Pandya and this firm came to be known as John Jain Mehra and Company (M/s John and Company). It appears that M/s and company faced certain financial difficulties and, therefore, one Loon Karan Sethiya, partner of Sethni and company advanced some loans for their business and other requirements. On 18.4.1949, Original Suit No. bearing 76 of 1949 was instituted by Loon Karan Sethiya against two sets of defendants for recovery of Rs.21,11,500/-with cost and pendente lite interest. M/s John and Company and its partner were designated as defendant of the first set while Munni Lal Mehra, Hiralal Patni, and Gambhirmal Pandya as well as M/s John Jain Mehra Company were referred to the second set of defendants. During pendency of the aforesaid Suit No.76 of 1949, a receiver was appointed by the Civil Judge, Agra, in the month of May, 1949, to manage and control the affairs of John Mills. In the meantime, a final decree of partition in O.S. No. 31 of 1940 was passed on 16.7.1964. As a result of which, the disputed Bungalow no.4 bearing Municipal no.21/5, Jeoni Mandi, Agra, came to the lot of respondent-M/s Gambhirmal Pandya. An application was moved for release of the said Bungalow from the possession of the receiver, it was rejected by the Civil Judge, Agra as well as by the High Court. Ultimately, Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed the application and receiver was directed to be discharged on 28.8.1974. 8. In Original Suit No.74 of 1949, a decree was passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra on 5.4.1954 which gave rise to two first appeals namely, 465 of 1954 and 65 of 1955, which were decided by this Court by a common judgment dated 22.12.1972. 8. In Original Suit No.74 of 1949, a decree was passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra on 5.4.1954 which gave rise to two first appeals namely, 465 of 1954 and 65 of 1955, which were decided by this Court by a common judgment dated 22.12.1972. Loon Karan Sethiya here went up in appeal before the Supreme Court which was ultimately dismissed on 20.10.1996. Thus, the proceedings of Original Suit No.76 of 1949, instituted by Loon Karan Sethiya were culminated by the said order of the Apex Court. 9. After 28.8.1974, for discharge of receiver and recovery of possession of the Bungalow in dispute, the respondent no.1-M/s Gambhirmal Pandya filed an application dated 6.9.1974, namely, paper no.11302Ga. Another application paper no.11562Ga was moved in the year 1976 with the same prayer. The said application was followed by three applications numbered as Nos.12045, 12046 and 12048. The prayer in the said application was to release the property from the custody of the receiver. It was prayed therein that the court was required to deliver possession of the suit property to the applicant. It was stated therein that various persons had illegally occupied the suit property as it was not released from the custody of the Court. 10. As the aforesaid applications remained pending, application dated 8.10.1984 was filed with the prayer that the possession of Bungalow no.4 bearing Municipal no.21/05 Jeoni, Agra, which was still with the Court as custodialegisbe handed over to the petitioner, after dispossession of the opposite parties and occupants thereof, in accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for discharge of receiver and further damages for use and occupation thereof be also awarded to the applicant. 11. This application bearing no.4Ga has been allowed vide order 25.1.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Agra, which is under challenge herein. 12. It is noteworthy that the petitioner herein has not been able to dispute the fact that the Bungalow-in-question was part of the properties of John Mills in respect of which, suit for partition Original Suit No.31 of 1940 was instituted and the preliminary decree of partition declaring 8/40 share of M/s Gambhirmal Pandya was passed, and in the final decree dated 16.7.1964, the Bungalow-in-question came in the lot of M/s Gambhirmal Pandya. It further appears that two appeals, namely, 60 of 1965 and 65 of 1965 were filed before this Court, which are stated to be pending. 13. It is also not disputed that the receiver was appointed to control, manage and supervise the properties of John Mills in Suit no.76 of 1949 filed by Loon Karan Sethiya including the Bungalow in question. It is also undisputed that Prem Dutt Paliwal, father of the petitioner was inducted as a licencee with the permission of the Court by the receiver, and on certain complaints of receiver, by order dated 30.5.1959 passed by the Civil Judge, Agra receiver was directed to obtain possession of Bungalow no.4, if necessary, with the police aid from Prem Dutt Paliwal. The appeal filed by Prem Dutt Paliwal, against the order of the Civil Judge before this Court had been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.8.1967. It was observed therein that the appellant, Prem Dutt Paliwal was a licencee of Bungalow no.4. His possession was only permissive, subject to over all control of the receiver, who was in possession of the premises as custodia legis. It was held that it was within the discretion of the receiver to ask the appellant Prem Dutt Paliwal to vacate the premises. The order passed by the Civil Judge calling upon the appellant-Prem Dutt Paliwal to vacate the premises cannot be said to be illegal. It appears that having lost before this Court, Prem Dutt Paliwal filed an Original Suit No. 556 of 1967 before the Civil Judge, Agra to seek permanent injunction, which was dismissed on merit. 14. Having lost in the legal battle, Prem Dutt Paliwal inducted his own employee Man Singh in Bungalow no.4 by obtaining an order dated 7.10.1967 from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra under the Section 2(2) U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act 1954. Man Singh filed an Original Suit No.956 of 1967 for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of the order dated 7.10.1967 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra against Roop Singh Kishore Mehta. The said suit was contested by the said defendant by bringing the fact of the suit property being custodia legisand that the Rent Control Eviction Officer had no authority to pass any order with regard to the same. The said suit was contested by the said defendant by bringing the fact of the suit property being custodia legisand that the Rent Control Eviction Officer had no authority to pass any order with regard to the same. It was stated in the written statement therein that Prem Dutt Paliwal did not vacate the premises and had never delivered actual and physical possession of the Bungalow-in-question to the defendant pursuant to the order of the Civil Judge, Agra. The Original Suit no.956 of 1967 was dismissed in default on 9.1.1975 in the presence of learned counsel for the defendant. 15. The possession of Bungalow-in-dispute has, however, not been handed over by Prem Dutt Paliwal, the licencee, who was inducted by receiver. 16. In Miscellaneous Case No.199 of 1984, out of which the present petition arises, initially Prem Dutt Paliwal and Man Singh both had filed objections, separately. They both died during the pendency of the proceeding. The petitioner, Devendra Dutt Paliwal was substituted as respondent after death of his father, Prem Dutt Paliwal. After substitution, he did not press the objection of Prem Dutt Paliwal nor the heir of Man Singh who was also substituted, come forward to press his objection. 17. Rather, the substituted heir of Prem Dutt Paliwal, namely the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal filed his separate objection paper no.86Ga on 14.7.1999 seeking to press his independent right in the disputed Bungalow. It was contended by him that the Bungalow-in-dispute was occupied by him by way of a legal and valid allotment order since August 1999, well within the knowledge of M/s Gambhirmal Pandya Pvt.Ltd and he cannot be thrown out in miscellaneous proceedings, in a suit which was not alive. 18. It further appears from the record that the allotment order was challenged in Rent Control Revision No.11 of 1989 which was allowed on 19.5.2000 for setting aside the allotment order. A recall application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.5.2000, which was dismissed on 20.7.2002. The Writ Petition No.43367 of 2002 was filed by Devendra Dutt Paliwal against the judgment and order dated 20.7.2002 rejecting his recall. A recall application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.5.2000, which was dismissed on 20.7.2002. The Writ Petition No.43367 of 2002 was filed by Devendra Dutt Paliwal against the judgment and order dated 20.7.2002 rejecting his recall. The said writ petition was finally dismissed vide judgment and order dated 4.12.2012, with the following observations and directions as under:- “In view of the above, it is provided that petitioner, if file an affidavit within ten days from today before the trial court containing an undertaking that he shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent within six months from today, execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. It is also made clear that the petitioner-tenant shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondent-landlord month-to-month. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord(s) to proceed for execution of impugned orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law. It is also provided that in case the petitioner-tenant after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question failed to comply with any of the conditions, as aforesaid, he shall be liable to pay for such non compliance of pious undertaking given to the Court an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall also be recovered from petitioner-tenant alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises.” 19. Thus, a perusal thereof indicates that the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal was directed to give an undertaking before the trial court that he would vacate the disputed premises within six months and handover its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent. It was further observed that in case of default, it would be open for the landlord to seek execution. And further that in case of any default of undertaking given by the tenant, he was liable to pay exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/-. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the parties that no undertaking had been furnished by Devendra Dutt Paliwal and the order of Writ Court has not been complied with. It is also not in dispute that the respondent no.1 did not institute any execution proceeding pursuant to the order dated 4.12.2012 of this Court. 20. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the parties that no undertaking had been furnished by Devendra Dutt Paliwal and the order of Writ Court has not been complied with. It is also not in dispute that the respondent no.1 did not institute any execution proceeding pursuant to the order dated 4.12.2012 of this Court. 20. On a pointed query made by the Court, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that as the Bungalow-in-dispute is still in the custody of the court and the receiver has not been discharged till date to hand over vacant possession of the Bungalow, despite the order dated 28.8.1974 passed by the Apex Court in Original Suit no.76 of 1949 and since the property remained in custodialegis, no useful purpose would be served by seeking execution of the order of eviction dated 4.12.2012 of Devendra Dutt Paliwal passed by this Court. The respondent no.1, therefore, brought the said order before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Agra, in the instant proceedings i.e Misc Case No.199 of 1984 to contradict the objection 86Ga moved by the petitioner, to assert his independent right on the allotment order. 21. After the said fact was brought on record of the proceedings before Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Agra, the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal filed another objection paper no.174Ga dated 15.1.2013 pleading an all together new case. A copy of the said objection is on record at page 47' of the paper book. A perusal thereof indicates that the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal claimed that the Bungalow-in-question was a part of Khasra Plot no.2084, Muhal Kunwar Nidhan Singh, Zamindar of which was Baldev Singh, son of Kunwar Raghvendra Pratap Singh, who had executed a registered sale deed dated 3.12.1992 and sold his entire share in Khasra plot no. 2084 in the name of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner had been duly mutated in the revenue records. Remaining part of 7 biswa, khasra plot no.2084 which was in Muhal Kunwar Prabal Pratap Singh also devolved on the petitioner by virtue of the Will dated 15.12.1991 executed by its true owner. The name of the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal had been recorded in the revenue record on the basis of said Will. Remaining part of 7 biswa, khasra plot no.2084 which was in Muhal Kunwar Prabal Pratap Singh also devolved on the petitioner by virtue of the Will dated 15.12.1991 executed by its true owner. The name of the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal had been recorded in the revenue record on the basis of said Will. It was, thus, submitted that the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal came in possession of the property in question on the basis of a valid allotment order passed by the competent authority, namely Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the year 1989 and since after 1992, he was occupying the disputed Bungalow as a true owner thereof. 22. Along with these facts on record, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court an interim injunction order dated 12.1.2018 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge in Misc Civil Appeal No.193 of 2017, arising out of Original Suit No.718 of 2013, to submit that an order directing to maintain status quo has been granted in favour of the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal in an injunction suit filed by him. The said injunction order being in operation, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the Bungalow in dispute. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that in any case, the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal is claiming his independent right in the Bungalow in dispute and is not contesting the matter being an heir of Prem Dutt Paliwal. The petitioner who is the true owner of the suit property enjoin injunction from a court of law, he cannot be evicted in a miscellaneous proceeding under the garb of release of the bungalow in dispute from the custody of the Court. It is vehemently contended that the application paper no.4Ga dated 8.10.1984 moved by respondent no.1 was liable to be thrown at its threshold. It has wrongly been adjudicated by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Agra and the order impugned cannot be sustained. 24. It has further been asserted that the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal had filed Original Suit No.377 of 2018 on 16.4.2018 claiming a decree of partition to get his share separated (14 biswa land) in Khasra plot no.2084, Mauja Ghatwasan, Tehsil and District Agra with the constructions of Bungalow no.4 existing thereon, situated at Jeoni Mandi, Agra. He further claimed a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the disputed property. He further claimed a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the disputed property. 25. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal, cannot claim his independent right in the Bungalow in dispute, in as much as, the allotment order which is the basis of objection 86Ga filed by him, has been set aside and the dispute with regard to allotment made in his favour has been brought to its logical end. Any subsequent suit for partition and injunction filed by the petitioner would have no bearing on this case. The subsequent interim injunction order dated 12.10.2018 is in ignorance of the order dated 25.1.2018 passed in Misc Case No.199 of 1984. The said order has no relevance to the dispute in the present petition. 26. The question as to whether the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal had acquired independent right in the suit can be examined in the suit instituted by him. The petitioner has liberty to file evidence and get a relief in his favour. However, the instant case pertains to the release of Bungalow in question from the custody of the court. Once it is admitted that the petitioner was continuing in possession of Bungalow-in-dispute since the lifetime of his father Prem Dutt Paliwal who was directed to vacate the bungalow, he cannot claim his independent right to the exclusion of his father. In Misc Case No.199 of 1984, he was substituted after the death of his father. 27. Having noticed the facts borne out of the records, it is evident that the father of the petitioner namely Prem Dutt Paliwal was inducted as a licencee by the receiver with the permission of the Court. The receiver undertook a proceeding for his eviction which was finalized against him. He did not vacate the Bungalow-in-dispute, rather filed independent suit for injunction which was also dismissed. The Bungalow-in-question was not released from the custody of the Court, despite the order dated 28.8.1974 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing for release of the Bungalow in dispute from the possession of the receiver. In the meantime, the receiver had also died, but the Bungalow in dispute still remained in the custody of the Court. 28. No one was there to manage the properties given in the custody of the receiver. In the meantime, the receiver had also died, but the Bungalow in dispute still remained in the custody of the Court. 28. No one was there to manage the properties given in the custody of the receiver. The respondent no.1 moved successive applications to seek possession of the Bungalow-in-dispute, last being application no.4Ga dated 8.10.1984, but they were kept ending and the issue was finally decided only on 25.1.2018. 29. During these years, the Bungalow-in-dispute was being illegally occupied by the petitioner, Devendra Dutt Paliwal, who remained in its possession since the lifetime of his father Prem Dutt Paliwal, the licencee who was inducted by the receiver. The petitioner's father Prem Dutt Paliwal had lost in all unsuccessful attempts made by him to retain possession of the Bungalow-in-dispute. His own employee, Man Singh, also lost in the legal proceedings in an attempt to occupy the Bungalow-in-dispute. It is evident that Devendra Dutt Paliwal got an illegal allotment order in the year 1989 so as to claim his independent right in the suit property, as his father Prem Dutt Paliwal had failed to maintain his possession. In order to avoid eviction, Devendra Dutt Paliwal did not furnish undertaking despite a categorical direction of this court in the judgment and order dated 4.12.2012 in Writ-A No.43367 of 2002 filed by him. In the meantime, he got prepared certain Sale deeds and Will to claim his right as an owner of the Bungalow-in-dispute. The said sale deed and the Will are admittedly with respect to Khasra plot no.2084, Muhal Kunwar Nidhan Singh, whereas the subject matter of dispute in the instant proceeding is a construction, known as Bungalow no.4, bearing municipal no.21/05, Jeoni Mandi, Agra. The respondent no.1 has got a decree of partition in his favour whereby the Bungalow in dispute came in his lot. At no point of time, the alleged owner namely Zamindar, Baldev Singh son of Kunwar Raghvendra Pratap Singh had come forward to assert his right in the disputed property. 30. Further, the petitioner had set up sale deed and Will in an objection paper no.174Ga filed only on 15.1.2013, after having lost in the battle of allotment. At a previous point of time, in his objection paper no.86 Ga filed on 14.7.1999, he did not make any disclosure of the alleged sale deed dated 3.12.1992 and the Will dated 15.12.1991. Further, the petitioner had set up sale deed and Will in an objection paper no.174Ga filed only on 15.1.2013, after having lost in the battle of allotment. At a previous point of time, in his objection paper no.86 Ga filed on 14.7.1999, he did not make any disclosure of the alleged sale deed dated 3.12.1992 and the Will dated 15.12.1991. The story set up by him in his objection paper no.174 Ga dated 15.1.2013 is, therefore, unworthy of belief. As to the claim of petitioner based on the said alleged documents of title, it is open for him to pursue the suit filed by him in relation to the Bungalow in question. In any case, these facts have not impressed this Court to accept that the petitioner Devendra Dutt Paliwal has a right to retain possession of the disputed Bungalow. The petitioner, Devendra Dutt Paliwal cannot acquire better rights than his father. He had necessarily stepped into the shoes of his father and in the normal course he had to vacate the Bungalow in question, as soon as the right of his father to retain his possession had been determined. With a view to procrastinate the delivery of possession or physical eviction, the petitioner had taken recourse to all sorts of manipulation. The pendency of application for release of the Bungalow from the custody of the Court, since after 28.8.1974 the order in Original Suit No.76 of 1949, also had acted adverse to the interest of the respondent no.1. The petitioner had got a fraudulent and illegal allotment order in the year 1989 and later on refused to vacate the Bungalow in clear defiance of the order dated 4.12.2012 of this court, by setting up a new case of getting a sale deed and Will in his favour. No new right could have been created with respect to the Bungalow in dispute which was in the custody of the Court with the appointment of the receiver. The receiver in order to manage the Bungalow in dispute had inducted a licencee namely, Prem Dutt Paliwal, the petitioner’s father but had not been able to manage it properly. Even after discharge of receiver by the Apex Court by order dated 28.8.1974, the Court which was the custodian of the Bungalow in dispute could not manage it. The receiver in order to manage the Bungalow in dispute had inducted a licencee namely, Prem Dutt Paliwal, the petitioner’s father but had not been able to manage it properly. Even after discharge of receiver by the Apex Court by order dated 28.8.1974, the Court which was the custodian of the Bungalow in dispute could not manage it. This mistake on the part of the Court has resulted in a series of litigations and the disputed property rather than being managed reached at the verge of destruction. The mistake in not disposing of the applications for a period of 44 years is that of the Court and not of any other private person. It is the Court which did not pass orders on the application for release of the Bungalow in dispute in favour of the respondent no.1, who got a decree of partition and in whose share the Bungalow-in-dispute came by virtue of the partition decree dated 16.7.1964. 31. The petitioner had utterly failed in establishing that he is in possession of the Bungalow in dispute in his own right independent of the licence which was granted in favour of his father Prem Dutt Paliwal. 32. The last question remains to be considered as to whether the petitioner can be evicted from the Bungalow in dispute in a summary manner by allowing application 4Ga (Misc Case No. 199 of 1984). This aspect of the matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Hiralal Patni vs. Loon Karan Sethiya & others reported in AIR 1962 SC 21 . The said question has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Girish Chandra Gupta v M/s Gambhirmal Pandya Pvt Ltd Company, Jhon Mills, reported in (1999) 1ARC 105. The observation of the Apex Court in Hiralal Patni (supra) noted by the Co-ordinate Bench reads as under:- "Further citation would be redundant. These and such decisions seem to hold that a Court cannot evict a lessee from a receiver, whether he is a party to the suit or not. In exercise of its summary jurisdiction unless the lease expressly conferred a right of re-entry under the lease deed on the receiver. These and such decisions seem to hold that a Court cannot evict a lessee from a receiver, whether he is a party to the suit or not. In exercise of its summary jurisdiction unless the lease expressly conferred a right of re-entry under the lease deed on the receiver. It is not necessary to demarcate the boundaries of the summary jurisdiction of a Court in managing an estate through a receiver, for in this case we are clearly of the opinion that the applicant was in possession of the mill under an agreed and integrated scheme for running the mills by the different partners, though he was put in possession under a document described as a lease deed. In effect the receiver, during the course of the management, entrusted each mill to one of the partners so that the mills might be properly worked under experienced hands. The appellant expressly agreed to put the receiver in possession of the mill after the expiry of three years. No question of deciding the conflicting claims of a lessee and a third party arises in this case, nor is the Court called upon to pronounce on the vested rights of a lessee in conflict with those of the receiver. But this is a simple case of a Court in the course of its administration of the estate through the agency of a receiver making a suitable provision for the running of the mills. As the agreed term had expired, the Court, in our view, could certainly direct the appellant to put the mill in the possession of the receiver.'' 33. It was held that where the property is in the custody of the court and in the course of its administration through the agency of receiver, a licencee or lessee has been put in possession, the Court can direct for his eviction as no question of deciding conflicting claims of the lessee or a third party arises in this situation, nor is the Court called upon to pronounce on the vested rights of a lessee in conflict with those of the receiver. It was held that the summary process of ejectment undertaken by the court is only a step towards the discharge of the duties of the Court in the management of the estate and it cannot be said that the Court has lost its jurisdiction in that direction merely because the property has been in possession of a lessee or a licencee of the receiver. 34. As discussed above, after ejectment of the original licencee Prem Dutt Paliwal, he was under obligation to vacate the Bungalow in dispute. The petitioner, Devendra Dutt Paliwal being son of the original licencee is liable to be evicted from the Bungalow in dispute. His plea of getting an independent right in the Bungalow-in-dispute during pendency of the Misc Case No. 199 of 1984, has been found without substance. 35. The Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Agra, is hereby directed to handover vacant possession of Bungalow no.4 to the respondent no.1 by taking all steps and measures to ensure that the Bungalow no.4 is vacated by Devendra Dutt Paliwal, the petitioner herein. In case of any resistance or obstruction in enforcement of the order dated 25.1.2018 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Agra, in Misc Case No.199 of 1984, appropriate steps such as assistance of police force shall be taken by the Court. 36. The vacant possession of Bungalow no.4 bearing Municipal no. 21/5, Jeoni Mandi, Agra shall be handed over to respondent no.1 M/s Gambhirmal Pandya through the process of the Court within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. 37. As the petitioner is in illegal possession of the Bungalow in question, he is liable for the damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month from the date of application dated 8.10.1984 till the date, he hands over vacant possession of the Bungalow in question to the Court or its vacant possession is obtained by eviction of the petitioner through the process of the Court. 38. Subject to the above, the present petition is dismissed.