- (1.) RAJ Kumar and others filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short "the Act") for ejectment of the respondents therein in respect of the premises constituting plot No. 2, Factory Area, Patiala, on the ground that the squatters had not paid or tendered arrears of rent since September, 1980, and they ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months. On notice having been issued in the said application, respondent No. 2 therein took an objection that no proceedings could be taken against the petitioner-company except with the leave of the court, in view of the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act, because liquidation proceedings were pending in the Calcutta High Court against petitioner No. 1. The learned Rent Controller found that the permission of the Calcutta High Court had been obtained and the relevant orders of the High Court, by which the appeal of the landlords was allowed, placed on the record as exhibit A-4. It was also concluded that the respondents before moving the ejectment application had obtained leave of the court as required by Section 446 (1) of the Companies Act. Ultimately, the ejectment application was allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be ejected from the premises by order dated September 23, 1988, passed by the learned Rent Controller. This order became final between the parties.
(2.) RAJ Kumar and others then took out execution of the said order and sought possession of the premises. Petitioner No. 2, the official liquidator, put in appearance in the execution proceedings and raised various objections by filing an objection petition. The precise objection was that the learned Rent Controller who passed ejectment order, had no jurisdiction in the matter and the order of ejectment was a nullity and could not be executed, petitioner No. 1-company being under liquidation and the official liquidator having been appointed by the Calcutta High Court before which the matter was still pending. It further went on to state that according to the provisions of Section 446 (1) of the Companies Act, the decree-holders were obliged to take the permission of the Calcutta High Court for filing the ejectment application but no such permission- having been obtained, the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller did not clothe the landlords with the right to seek possession of the premises, the order being illegal and incapable of being executed. It was also stated that order, exhibit A-4, dated June 10, 1983, passed by the Calcutta High Court did not allow the landlords to file an ejectment application. The decree-holders filed reply to the objection petition stating that they did file an application before the Calcutta High Court and it was accepted in appeal by the said High Court. It was on these premises contended that the execution application was maintainable.
(3.) THE executing court after considering the matter dismissed the objection petition by order dated March 24, 1990. Aggrieved by the said order, Beni Carbon Company and the official liquidator have filed the present revision.;