N.K. Sodhi, J. - (1.) WHETHER proceedings for the execution of an order creating a limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Rent Act") are "other legal proceeding" within the meaning of Section 446(1) of the Companies, Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act"), necessitating leave of the court for their continuance after the company has been ordered to be wound up and whether the Rent Controller before whom such proceedings are pending is "a court" within the meaning of Section 446(3) of the Act so as to entitle this court to transfer the proceedings to its own file, are the two meaningful questions that arise for determination in this petition filed under Section 446 of the Act.
(2.) DR . S. P, Bhargava is the owner of the premises situate at 83, Anand Lok, New Delhi. As he did not require the premises for a limited period of two years he decided to let out the same for this period to Haryana Electro Steel Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Act with its registered office in the State of Haryana (referred to hereinafter as "the company"). A joint application was filed before the Rent Controller, Delhi, under Section 21 of the Rent Act by the landlord and the company through its director, Shri Jagdish Prashad Gupta, who had been authorised to represent the company by a resolution in this regard. The Rent Controller, after recording the statements of the parties, passed the following order on November 1, 1976 : "In view of the statement of the parties, I am satisfied that the petitioner wants to let out, and the respondent wants to take the premises shown in plan, exhibit A -1, being House No. 83, Anand Lok, New Delhi, for a period of two years from the date of letting according to law for residence and the petitioner will require the premises after two years for himself. I permit the petitioner to let out this premises to the respondent for a period of two years from the date of letting according to law for residence. The respondent shall vacate the premises after the expiry of two years. If he fails, the petitioner can apply for possession within six months after the expiry of two years. File be consigned." It may be mentioned that the premises had been taken on rent by the company for the residence of its managing director, Shri Pradeep Gupta. On the expiry of the tenancy on October 31, 1978, the company did not deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord who then filed an application for the execution of the order dated November 1, 1976. In the execution proceedings, the company through its director, Shri Pradeep Gupta, gave an undertaking to vacate the premises by October 31, 1980, and till then it would continue to pay rent of Rs. 2,700 per month for use and occupation of the premises. The execution application was consigned to the record room. Even after October 31, 1980, the vacant possession of the premises was not delivered to the landlord and he was compelled to file another execution application on February 17, 1981, which is still pending.
(3.) IN the meantime, the company was ordered to be wound up by this court on January 16, 1986, on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts. On an application filed under Section 446 of the Act, operation of the winding up order was stayed on March 4, 1986 (annexure P -2 with the petition), and the company undertook to pay the amount due to the petitioning creditor by instalments as fixed by this court in the order staying the winding up proceedings. It was stipulated in the stay order that in case the company made default in any two successive instalments, the stay order would be deemed to be vacated. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the order staying the winding up proceedings was vacated by this court on March 11, 1988 (annexure P -5 with the petition).;