9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared through Shri Panjwani and Shri V. K. Jain, advocates. On October 25, 1991, Shri Panjwani appeared on behalf of Muke-shkumar Rochaldas, Shri Gangrade on behalf of Komal Jain, Shri S. S. Samwatsar for Dayal and Dayal, Indra Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Saty-anarayan and Premchand. Shri Samwatsar filed reply on their behalf. Shri Bagadiya, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Manoharlal Nagar. Time was given to the remaining tenants to file reply. The report of the official liquidator was that the occupation is unauthorised. Therefore, the copy of the report was also given to the tenants. The report was filed as directed earlier by the court by the official liquidator on February 21, 1992, which was directed to be kept in safe custody. All the tenants who were noticed why action should not be taken against them under section 536 of the Companies Act, 1956, have filed reply. Arguments have been heard. Now, from the report of the official liquidator given in compliance with the order of this court, it appears, that there are many tenants against whom action has to be initiated. The report be kept with the file in a sealed cover as before and action may be initiated after asking t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has signed the rent deed along with the seal of the official liquidator and the rent was being received by the office of the official liquidator till December, 1990, at the rate of Rs. 325. At house No. 498, Dayal and Dayal have been inducted as tenants from June, 1986, on a rent of Rs. 400 per month, the owners have been issued receipts on October 8, 1986, in token of rent from June, 1986, to December, 1986. Similarly, Indra Kumar, Ramesh Kumar at 498, M. G. Road, Indore, have been inducted as tenants from November, 1986, on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. This tenancy was also given by Shri Jaiswal the then official liquidator and on October 31, 1986, a receipt for Rs. 300 has been issued by him. Komal Jain, who has been inducted as tenant at house No. 50, Bajaj Khanna, admitted that he has paid the rent till August, 1990. Shri Jain was also sent a letter by the official liquidator to clarify on what basis the possession is with him, but he did not send any reply to the official liquidator. He is inducted since December, 1982, as tenant. Ratanlal Poonamchand Jain has been inducted as a tenant in January, 1987, on a rent of Rs. 50 per month at 6, Dhan Gali, Indore. He was also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Mandanlal. He has also raised the same pleas as raised by the other tenants. Manoharlal Nagar in his reply has stated that the noticee is a tenant in the shop in house No. 497, since November 18, 1986. A rent note was executed in favour of the noticee on November 18, 1986, a copy of which is filed as. annexure 1. The noticee was in possession of the premises prior to the execution of the rent deed. He is regularly paying the rent to the official liquidator and the receipts are issued by the official liquidator. Therefore, he cannot be said to be in unauthorised occupation. All the parties in the court are aware of this fact. It has also been stated that sanction of the court is not necessary to be obtained before the official liquidator gives the property on lease. The tenants were represented by their counsel and they were heard at length. Counsel for the petitioner was also heard in detail and the official liquidator, Shri S. C. Gupta, was also heard. The argument of learned counsel for the tenant is that seeking the permission by the official liquidator from the court before inducting a tenant for giving a lease is a matter between the official liquidator and the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any contributory, to draw, accept, make and endorse any bill of exchange, hundi, or promissory note and matters pertaining to letters of administration. Then sub-section (3) speaks of the exercise by the liquidator of the powers conferred by this section which shall be with the control of the court and any creditor or contributory may apply to the court with respect to the exercise . or proposed exercise of any of the powers conferred by this section. As such it is manifest that the power to lease out the property is not specifically mentioned in either sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). Therefore, when specifically a power is not given to the official liquidator, then the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 457 have to be looked into which provides for the overall control of the court on the acts of the official liquidator. Therefore, it is manifest that the official liquidator while leasing out the property to the tenants has to seek the permission of the court because it is the court in whose custody the property after the liquidation is kept and the official liquidator exercises his duties according to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, I hold that the induction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
