9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the said flat No. 107 on the second floor of Block A, Trivoli Court, at No. 1/C, Bullygunge Circular Road, at a monthly rent of Rs. 950, service charge Rs. 250 per month and hire charge for fittings at Rs. 150 per month, making an aggregate of Rs. 1,350 per month. The said Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. also advanced a sum of Rs. 30,000 which was to be adjusted against the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 500 per month and the company paid rent in terms of the said tenancy agreement up to certain period and, thereafter, it failed and neglected to pay rent in respect of the same. It is alleged in the affidavit being the ground of the present application, affirmed by one Pradip Mehta on 23rd December, 1980, that the company defaulted in making payment of rent and hire charges in terms of the said monthly tenancy agreement since December, 1970, and, thereafter, no payment has been made by the company in respect of the rent and service charges and, as such, the applicant by letter dated 21st October, 1976, addressed to the Authorised Controller of the parent division of the company which was taken over by the Central Govt. under I (D R) Act, 1951, which replied, as per the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said affidavit that the applicant started accepting rent pursuant to their letter dated 5th April, 1972, and issued rent receipts to Mr. S.C. Bhalla, who is admittedly in possession of the said flat No. 107 in Trivoli Court, Block A. It is also alleged that the applicant refused to accept rent and, thereafter, Mr, Bhalla started depositing rent with the Rent Controller from April, 1977, and he has been depositing the rent up to February, 1981. Bhalla alleged that he became a direct tenant under the applicant in 1972 when Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. went into liquidation in 1974. Therefore, the alleged tenancy of Mr. Bhalla under the applicant cannot be linked up with the company in liquidation, being Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. It was also argued by Mr. Das that there was an implied surrender by the company and a fresh tenancy in favour of Mr. Bhalla in 1972. In the said affidavit, he has annexed two rent receipts dated 5th January, 1973, and 9th August, 1973, for Rs. 930 each and also a letter dated 5th April, 1972, which is set out here : "From : M/s. Antonie Bentz Pvt. Ltd., A-3, Gillander House, 8, Netaji Subhas Road, Post Box No. 2045, Calcutta-700001. To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and the parent division at Titagarh by the Central Govt. under the I (D R) Act, 1951, as different units of industrial undertakings, and the rest of the company's assets were administered by the liquidator in winding up of the company and subsequently, these were sold by public auction in court. From the present application of the applicant for leave under section 446, it transpired to the official liquidator for the first time that the company had a monthly tenancy in the said flat at Trivoil Court being flat No. 107 in Block A under the applicant. It is also stated by the official liquidator in the affidavit filed by one Ananda Mohan Ganguly, affirmed on 21st January, 1981, in this application, that the said winding-up order dated 4th October, 1972, was appealed from and stayed and again by an order dated 10th January, 1973, the company was wound up and the official liquidator became the liquidator. Mokama unit of the company in liquidation was taken over by the Central Govt. under the I (D R) Act, 1951, in 1974 and the Titagarh unit had two divisions, one was the parent division and the other was the Steel Foundry Division. By an order of this court dated 30th November, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant dated 24th September, 1971, also clearly shows that the applicant was writing to Mr. Bhalla that his service with Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. stood terminated with effect from 31st December, 1970, and, therefore, it was stated by the applicant that once Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. cancelled their tenancy, the occupation of the flat will be considered unauthorised occupation, involving so many complications and embarrassment to all concerned. It was also mentioned that payment of rent by Mr. Bhalla was not required till the advance paid by Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. lasts. From the subsequent correspondence which are annexed to the said letter, it is abundantly clear that whatever discussion or arrangement the applicant entered into with Mr. Bhalla, is there any occupation of the said flat was subject to the settlement of the lease matter with Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd., who was admittedly the lessee of the said flat. That is clear from the letter dated 12th May, 1971,annexed to the affidavit-in-reply of Pradip Mehta, affirmed on the 16th April, 1981. The entire trend of the correspondence annexed to the said affidavit clearly shows that Mr. Bhalla was occu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second floor, Block A of Trivoli Court, has nothing to do with the industrial undertaking taken over under the said Act by the Central Govt. Therefore, sub-section (10) of section 18FA of the I (D R) Act has no application as the said flat is not an industrial undertaking or a concern in relation to the function and control to be exercised by the authorised person of the industrial undertaking which has been taken over, being the parent division at Titagarh. Consequently, the said contention of Mr. Chowdhury cannot be accepted and the said flat, the monthly tenancy of which belonged to the company in liquidation, being Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd., now devolves on the official liquidator and is deemed to be in the custody of the court under section 456(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, of which the official liquidator is the custodian. It is also admitted by S. C. Bhalla that his service has been terminated as hereinbefore stated in 1970 and still, he is continuing in possession of the said flat which was given to him by the company now in liquidation as an employee for occupation during the period of service with the company, and, as his service is admittedly terminated, he must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e court is to administer justice and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. When the fact of unauthorised occupation of the company's asset or property by a person is clearly proved before the court, the court has ample power under section 446(2)( a ), ( b ) and ( d ) read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to pass such order as it may think proper for determining the rights of the parties and it is a fit case where the said power should be exercised in the interest of justice and to shorten the litigation and prevent multiplicity of proceedings. There is also a prayer for further or other orders. The court has ample power under rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to make any order which the facts and circumstances of the case demand. The court has ample power also under section 468 if it discovers any property in the possession of an ex-employee of a company and admittedly Mr. Bhalla is an ex-employee and was in possession of the said fiat No. 107 in Trivoli Court while in service with the company and, therefore, the tenancy is an asset and the property of the company which is still in the wrongful possession of Mr. Bhalla and he can be directed by the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
