- (1.) This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned Company Judge dated 08.02.2000 allowing the first respondent's application and directing the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the first respondent within two months.
(2.) The first respondent is the purchaser of an immovable property belonging to the 2nd respondent M/s Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., a company in liquidation. The property was brought to sale in Execution No.21-L of 1987 filed by the appellant. The execution application was taken out by the appellant in respect of a decree obtained by it for recovery of about Rs. 23 lacs in a mortgage suit filed by the appellant. After the first respondent purchased the property at the auction, it was handed over the possession of the property. However, the appellant refused to handover a portion of the property claiming that it was in possession thereof as a tenant. Admittedly, the appellant at whose instance the property was brought to sale in execution proceedings did not disclose in the proclamation or otherwise and at any time prior to the sale that it claimed to be in possession of a part of the property as a tenant.
(3.) The question, therefore, is whether the first respondent is entitled to possession of the entire property including the portion in respect of which the appellant claims to be a tenant. The learned Judge held that the appellant is a tenant but held that it was estopped from setting up its claim as a tenant as it had failed to disclose its interest as such while bringing the property to sale in the execution proceedings. The appeal is against the latter finding. The first respondent has filed cross objections challenging the finding that the appellant is a tenant in respect of a portion of the property. We have dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross objections. In the result the first respondent succeeds in obtaining possession of the entire property.;