IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No. 285 of 2005 1. Janardhan Sah S/o Late Tulsi Sah 2. Nandan Sah S/o Late Tulsi Sah, both residents of Naugachia Bazar, Durga Asthan Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Naugachia, District-Bhagalpur. 3. Kailash Prasad Singh S/o Janardhan Singh, resident of Mohalla Mill Tola, Naugachia, P.O. and P.S. Naugachia, District Bhagalpur. …..Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. V e r s u s 1. Birendra Kumar Kejriwal S/o Late Radha Kishan Kejriwal, resident of Naugachia Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Naugachia, District Bhagalpur. …Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. 2. Sikandar Singh S/o Chhedi Singh, resident of village Makhatakia, P.O. and P.S. Naugachia, District Bhagalpur. ….Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. For the appellants : M/s Md. Faruque Ahmad and Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 08/ 29.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Eviction Suit No.05 of 1996, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent no.1 for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises detailed in schedule of the plaint on the grounds of default in payment of rent and breach of terms of tenancy, including subletting by the defendants. The said suit was decreed on the question of default by 2 the learned Munsif, Naugachiya vide his judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed Title Eviction Appeal No.97 of 2004 which was dismissed on contest by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Naugachiya vide his judgment and decree dated 12.09.2005. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of both the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that there are concurrent findings of facts with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as default in payment of rent by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants raises an objection that the plaintiff being a receiver of the suit premises appointed by the court had no authority to institute a suit without permission of the court. It is well settled that a receiver is a person appointed for collection or protection of the property and if he is appointed by the court, he is an officer of the court deriving his authority from the court itself. In the said circumstances, the receiver who is entitled to receive rent of the suit property from the tenant is definitely acting as a landlord as defined under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1982. Furthermore, the basic duty of the receiver is to protect the property from any loss and hence if there is a default in payment of rent and the property is running in loss due to it, the receiver can definitely file a suit for eviction of such defaulter tenant. 3 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)