9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed in Exhibits "A" and "C" to the affidavit in support of that application and also for further relief of payment of a sum of Rs. 7,24,03,372 (Rupees Seven Crores Twenty-four lakhs Three thousand Three hundred Seventy-two), together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 59,20,411 (Rupees Fifty-nine lakhs Twenty thousand Four hundred Eleven) from the date of filing of the application till the payment and/or realisation. In so far as relief ( b ) of payment of amounts referred to above is concerned, counsel appearing for the applicant has made a statement across the bar, on instructions, that the applicant shall not press this relief, in the event the Official Liquidator was directed to hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question. In the circumstances, the only issue that requires to be considered by me is whether the Official Liquidator should be directed to deliver quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the applicant landlord. 3. The Official Liquidator as well as the ex-director have already placed on record their respective stand that holding on to the premises in question, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of the Rent Act. The Rent Act is no doubt enacted for protecting the tenants, and indisputably its provisions must receive such interpretation as to advance the protection and thwart the action of the landlord in rendering tenants destitutes. But this does not imply that the Court should lend its aid to flout the provisions of the Rent Act so as to earn money by unfair and impermissible use of the premises. And that is what the Liquidator sought to do and the court extended its help to the liquidator. This, in our opinion, is wholly impermissible. The learned company Judge could not have authorised the liquidator to enter into such an agreement and, therefore, his order is liable to be set aside. 11. The learned company Judge could not have permitted holding on to possession of the premises, not needed for efficiently carrying on winding up proceedings. The only course open to him was to direct the liquidator to surrender possession to landlords and save recurring liability to pay rent. Before we part with this judgment, we must take note of one submission that was made on behalf of the respondent. It was said that the creditors and members of the company in liquidation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Writ Petition No. 4858 of 2003. Reliance was placed on the said affidavit even by the Counsel for the workers union, however, on fair reading of the said affidavit, the position that emerges is that since March 1990, the company in liquidation and the applicant company have no common directors. That averment made on affidavit has remained uncontroverted. In fact, this aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this Court and having accepted the same, it was pleased to vacate the ad-interim order granted earlier, as can be discerned from para 3 of the order passed by the Division Bench dated October 9, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 4858 of 2003. Understood thus, there is no substance in the objection as taken, on behalf of the workers union. Assuming that some of the directors in Company in liquidation and the Applicant Company were common, to my mind, that by itself would have made no difference for deciding the present application because the fact that some directors were common to both, alone cannot be the basis for non-suiting the landlord of the relief claimed in this application when the landlord is a separate juristic person. 6. That takes me to the third objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to assign or transfer the demised premises, without the consent of the landlord. It is also contended that assuming that section 56 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, could be invoked to consider the claim of the workers union, however, in the present case, the tenancy rights of the company in liquidation have already been determined by giving notice and suit has been instituted not only on the ground that the lease period has expired and the occupation of the company in liquidation is, therefore, unauthorised, but also on the ground of default within the meaning of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, as was applicable at the relevant time. It was contended that, besides the stipulation in the Lease Deed, having regard to the fact that the tenancy rights of the company in liquidation have been determined and eviction proceedings have already been resorted to by the landlord in that behalf, the question of invoking section 56 in that situation, does not arise. It is further contended that in any case, to give benefit to the tenant of the provision of section 56, it is imperative that the landlord should consent for the proposed transfer in favour of the third party and in absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are no longer required for the company in liquidation. Thus, following the dictum of the Apex Court in Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna s case ( supra ), this application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ( a ). However, the operative order that I propose to pass is incidentally on the same terms as was passed by Justice Deshmukh vide order dated 30th January, 2003 in the present company application, which is as follows : (1)The Official Liquidator shall take steps to sell the movable articles which are presently lying in the premises within a period of one month from today. (2)In case the movable articles are sold and possession thereof is given to the successful bidder within a period of one month as stated above, at the end of that period, the Official Liquidator shall handover vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. (3)In case the sale of movables cannot be completed within a period of one month, that fact shall be communicated by the Official Liquidator to the landlord. On receiving that communication, the landlord shall provide a separate room in the same premises to the Official Liquidator for storing the unsold movables. That room shall remain in the custod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
