1. The judgment-debtor in this case is a permanent lessee or thekadar paying a certain rent to the zamindar. In the execution department in execution of a decree passed against him the learned Subordinate Judge has appointed a Receiver to collect rents recoverable by the thekadar from occupancy and non-occupancy tenants. He has come here in appeal in consequence. It was argued on his behalf that he was in the position of a non-occupancy tenant and his interest in the holding cannot be transferred except by way of lease of one year.
2. It was contended that the order of the lower Court amounted to a transfer or the interest of a thekadar and was therefore invalid under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Agra Tenancy Act. Reference was also made to Order 40, Rule 1 for the appointment of a Receiver where a Court is given power to order the removal of any person from the possession or custody of the property.
3. The inference sought to be drawn, was that the property has been removed from the possession and custody of this thekadat and Receiver is appointed to be in possession and custody of the property. We do not take this view of the appointment of Receiver. Order 40 does not specifically refer to execution proceedings.
4. When in execution proceedings a Receiver is appointed we take it that he is put in the position of the judgment-debtor and there is no transfer of the property from the judgment-debtor to him. The arrears of rent which have once accrued are admittedly liable to attachment and recovery in satisfaction of a debt. All that Court has done is to appoint a person who shall, whenever rents have accrued, recover them and utilise them on behalf of the judgment-debtor in payment of the decree. There is no transfer of the interest of a thekadar.
5. Taking this view we do not think that there is any prohibition, against the order of the lower Court, contained in the Tenancy Act.
6. We dismiss this appeal with costs which will include fees here on the higher scale.