Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.
1. This is a suit for ejectment brought by a Receiver appointed on the Original Side of this Court against the defendant whose tenancy is found to have been terminated by a notice to quit.
2. The only question raised for our decision--and this point was raised in both the lower Courts--is whether the suit has been brought by the Receiver under proper authority, We have been referred to the case of Drobomoyi Gupta v. Davis I.L.R. 1.4 Cal. 1323 as a precedent for holding that this same Receiver was found incompetent, without permission of the Court, to sue for the ejectment of a tenant under the terms of his appointment. We are not disposed to disagree with the rule laid down in that judgment, but we think that it is inapplicable to the present case. That was a suit for the determination of a tenancy of a permanent character. In the present case it has been found that the interest of the tenant was merely temporary and determinable by a notice to quit, which has been served. These two cases, therefore, are not identical. We have also been referred to a long series of cases decided in the Courts in England, quoted in Kerr on Receivers, pages 151 and 152. We observe that in all those cases the power of the Receiver was questioned before the Court by which he was appointed. In only two of those cases was the objection raised by the party against whom the Receiver was proceeding. In all the other cases the decision of the question only affected the Receiver's right to charge hit; costs in the action against the estate. In the two cases to which reference has been made Wynne v. Lord Newborough 3 Browne's C.C. 87 and in a later proceeding between the same parties (1 Yes. Jun. 164), where the objection was raised by the parties against whom the Receiver was proceeding, it was held that such persons had no valid interest to object, and their applications were refused. Having regard to the terms of the order appointing the Receiver, we think that they are sufficient to confer on him the power to bring a suit to eject a tenant having only a temporary interest, such as a monthly tenant in the case before us whose tenancy has been determined. We have been referred to the case of Miller v. Ram Runjun Chuckerbutty I.L.R., 10 Cal. 1014 and although we may say that we do not altogether agree in the general terms of that decision, we find that it is not in point, as it affects the right of a party to proceed against a Receiver without permission of the Court appointing him. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.