9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi Rent Control Act. It was also contended that the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act will prevail over the provision of the Companies Act as Delhi Rent Control Act was a special as well as subsequent Act and the Company Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to eviction of a tenant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Smt. Nirmala R. Bafna Vs. Khandesh Spinning & Weaving Mill Co. Ltd. AIR 1993 SC 1380, Dr. S.P. Bhargava Vs. and Electric Steel Co. Ltd. 1994 (CVIII) Punjab Law Reporter 406, Joshi Trading Co. Vs. Essa Ismail Sait 1980 (50) Company Cases 801. 2. In sum and substance it was contended that a tenant can only be evicted on the grounds specified in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that too when the landlord is able to establish existence of that particular ground before the Rent Controller. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent before the Company Court would not be maintainable and the only remedy of the respondent was to file the appropriate case before the Rent Controller under the said Act. 3. We have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Company Judge. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, except by leave of the [Tribunal] and subject to such terms as the [Tribunal] may impose. (2) [Tribunal] shall; notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of (a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company; (b) any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India); (c) any application made under Section 391 by or in respect of the company; (d) any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or rise in course of the winding up of the company. Whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted or is instituted or such claim or question has arisen or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960. [(4)] Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall apply to any proceeding pending in appeal before the Supreme Court or a High Court.) 5. The object of Section 446 is to avoid unnecessary litigation and to protect the assets of the company under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covery of rent or damages thereof. Thus, under the 1971 Act there is only one procedure available for eviction of a person in unauthorised occupation of public premises and that procedure is to be found in the 1971 Act. The other courts have no jurisdiction in these matters vide Hari Singh V. Military Estate Office, Delhi, AIR 1972 SC 2205. It will be immediately clear that the 1971 Act deals with a very Limited objective. It only means that if the Act of 1971 was not there, the LIC would have to file a civil suit or go before the Rent Controller for recovery of possession of premises or recovery of rent/damages. What is important to be emphasised is that the Act of 1971 is not a distinct code which has created its own liabilities and rights and has brought forth a new set of rights and liabilities under the said Act not existing before. The 1971 Act deals with the rights and liabilities of the parties under ordinary law but only a new forum and remedy has been created in respect of public premises. It is this limited nature of converge by the 1971 Act which must be borne in mind when answering the poser raised before us. .......................................................... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Liquidator, Sobhodaya Publications Ltd. [1955] 25 Company Cases 49. 9. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Full Bench decision only examined in the context of Public Premises Act, is not correct as the Court has specifically referred to the Delhi Rent Control Act as well. Therefore, the Court while dealing with the case of PP Act vis-a-vis Section 446 of the Companies Act held that PP Act laid down the procedure for recovery of possession and did not create any liabilities or rights which were not existing before. If PP Act would not have been in existence, the remedy was to file a civil suit of to go before the Rent Controller for recovery of possession and if these proceedings are resorted to this would tantamount to 'legal proceedings' as contemplated under Section 446 of the Companies Act for which the leave of the Company Court was a pre-requisite. Therefore, in the instant case when the company was ordered to be wound up and the possession of the assets of the company was taken over by the Liquidator, application for recovery of possession of such tenanted premises can be dealt with by the Company Court with the rider that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
