1994 (12) TMI 291 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unauthorized induction of tenants by the official liquidator.
2. Validity of leases executed by the official liquidator without court sanction.
3. Actions to be taken against tenants and the official liquidator.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Unauthorized Induction of Tenants by the Official Liquidator:
The official liquidator had inducted several tenants into properties under liquidation without obtaining the necessary court permission. This unauthorized induction was first reported on February 15, 1991, and notices were issued to the tenants treating them as trespassers. The tenants, represented by their counsel, filed replies and argued that they were unaware of the necessity for the official liquidator to obtain court sanction before leasing the properties.

2. Validity of Leases Executed by the Official Liquidator Without Court Sanction:
The court examined the powers of the official liquidator under Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was determined that while the official liquidator has certain powers, leasing out property without court sanction is not explicitly authorized under either subsection (1) or (2) of Section 457. Subsection (3) provides that the official liquidator's actions are subject to the court's control. Therefore, the court concluded that the official liquidator's actions in leasing the properties were beyond his jurisdiction and thus illegal.

3. Actions to be Taken Against Tenants and the Official Liquidator:
Despite the illegality of the leases, the court considered the tenants' long-term occupation and regular rent payments. The court decided not to oust the tenants immediately but instead directed them to execute fresh lease deeds with the official liquidator. The new rent for properties on M.G. Road was set at five times the existing rent, and for other areas, it was set at four times the existing rent. Tenants were given 15 days to comply after receiving notice from the official liquidator. Failure to execute new agreements would result in summary ejectment proceedings. The court also directed the Department to take suitable action against the then official liquidator for his unauthorized actions.

Conclusion:
The court provided a balanced resolution by recognizing the tenants' lack of fault while ensuring compliance with legal procedures. Fresh leases at revised rents were mandated, and the official liquidator's overreach was acknowledged, warranting departmental action. The matter was disposed of with specific directions for future proceedings and the handling of other tenants' leases.