- (1.) This order will dispose of the application preferred by M/s. Patel Engineering Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant') being Company Application No. 405 of 2002 and all reports of the official Liquidator concerning the issue regarding the steps to be taken in respect of the premises in question, which were originally occupied by the company in liquidation on lease.
(2.) The above numbered application has been filed by the applicant praying that the Official Liquidator be directed to hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises described 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. Insofar 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 not essential any more. It is not in dispute that the company had stopped its activities and business since long and now the company has already been directed to be wound up by order dated 23rd January, 2004. That order is holding the field as of now. In other words, the Official Liquidator as well as the Ex-director have conceded the position that the premises in question are no longer required for the company in liquidation. If it is so, ordinarily, having regard to the legal position enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of (Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna and another v. Official Liquidator, High Court, bombay and another) , reported in A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 1061, particularly paragraphs 9 and 11 thereof, this Application ought to succeed. Paras 9 and 11 of the said decision read thus :- "9.The company was a tenant or a lessee of the premises of which the appellants are the landlords. The date of the commencement of the lease is not made available to us, but it is also not claimed on behalf of the liquidator that there was lease of long duration. If so, the company was a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. The statutory tenancy confers the right to be in possession but if the tenant does not any more require use of the premises, the provisions of the Rent Act and especially sections 13 and 15 completely prohibit giving the possession of the premises on licence or on sub-lease. The learned Company Judge therefore spelt out a third way of parting with the possession by the Liquidator, namely, that he may give the premises to the second respondent under a caretaker's agreements. This caretaker's agreement appears to us to be an euphemism for collecting compensation which is nothing else but the charge for use and occupation of the premises exclusively by the second respondent. Whether it is sub-lease or licence does not call for decision. For the purpose of the present proceedings it is enough for us to say that the company and its Liquidator no more need the premises for its own use. The Liquidator does not need the use of the premises for carrying on the winding up activities of the company because he sought direction for parting with possession. We are not impressed by the learned Judge saying that there is some third mode of parting with possession of the premised exclusively in favour of the second respondent, namely, caretaker's agreement which appears to us to be a facade to wriggle out of the provisions 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 v 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 have suffered huge losses and if the Liquidator would have been permitted to enter into an agreement with the second respondent, it would fetch a steady income which would have gone towards mitigating the hardships of the creditors and members of the company. The accounts of the company in liquidation were not brought to our notice nor can we permit violation of law howsoever laudable the object of such act may be. ";