1. This Civil Revision has been preferred challenging the order, dated 07.10.2009 made in M.P.No.497 of 2009 in R.C.A.No.370 of 2009 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Cause, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

2. The miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.497 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein under Section 23 (2) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 2006 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980, seeking interim stay of the order of delivery of possession passed in E.P.No.335 of 2008 in R.C.O.P.No.1536 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller / XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, pending disposal of the R.C.A, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. Mr.M.Kumaraswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent, being the party receiver has not obtained leave from the Court, as contemplated under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing with the property and according to the learned counsel, the Court below has not considered the scope of Order 27 Rule 97 (i) subject to Order 21 Rule 104 CPC properly, holding that all the co-owners are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property, pending disposal of the Civil Suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the tenant was inducted by the revision petitioner long back, however, without appreciating the facts and circumstance of this case, the respondent party receiver obtained an order of eviction against the tenant and now trying to implement it against the interest of the petitioner. With the above pleadings, the revision petitioner had filed the M.P., seeking interim stay of the order of delivery of possession made in E.P.No.335 of 2008 in R.C.O.P.No.1535 of 2006 on the file of the Court below.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to Order 40 Rule

1 CPC, which reads as follows :

"Appointment of receivers - (1) Where it appears to the court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order -

(a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree;

(b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property;

(c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver; and

(d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suits and for the realization, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of the document as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit.

(2) Nothing in this rule shall authorize the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property, any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove. "

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions :

1. D.Amsaveni vs. Chandran, 2007-4-LW 517

2. Radha Kanta vs. Benode Behari, AIR 1934 Calcutta 444

3. Bhagwan Das vs. Sheonandan Prasad Sahu, 1925 Patna 293

6. Mr.T.Adiseshan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that originally the rents were collected by the petitioner herein and another brother, however, they failed to pay even the tax payable to the State, hence, by order, dated 12.02.2008, this Court appointed the respondent herein as party receiver in the civil suit for partition, which is pending on the file of this Court. When the respondent herein was appointed by this Court as party receiver, there was no objection from the petitioner herein and the other brother and sister. The respondent is collecting the rent from the other tenants and depositing the same, as per the direction of this Court passed in the aforesaid order. However, the petitioner is collecting rent from the tenant mentioned in th