Vinayak M. Deshpande and Texpoline (Poona) P. Ltd. vs Official Liquidator, Ecoline Development Engineers Ltd. (In Liquidation) and Another

S.S. Nijjar, J.—This order will dispose of Company Application No. 280 of 1999 and Company Application No. 543 of 1999.

It is the case of the applicant that the premises which have been sealed by the liquidator viz., House No. 2015/2, Sayantara, Sadashiv Peth, Tilak Road, Near Grahak Peth, Pune-400 030, belong to the applicant. These premises were let out to Ecoline Development Engineers Ltd. (in liquidation). This company was ordered to be wound up on December 2, 1998. These premises had been shown by the company in liquidation as their registered office. Consequently, the premises have been sealed by the official liquidator. The premises were let out to the company in liquidation in the year 1980. However, in the year 1986, the registered office of the company was shifted to some other premises. The company has failed to pay the rental charges from December, 1992. Consequently, a notice was issued on March 1, 1997, to the company asking for vacant possession of the premises and for arrears of rent. Since the company failed to pay the rent, the applicant has filed a civil suit in the Small Causes Court, Pune, being Suit No. 490 of 1997 seeking vacant possession of the house premises. It is further the case of the applicant that the business of the company has come to a standstill. The premises are not being used for the purpose of the office or production of the company for which purpose it was let out. It is further the case of the applicant that since the premises are not being used for the purpose for which it was let out, the applicant is entitled to possession under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act.

Learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna and Another Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay and Another, , in which it is held that if the premises are not being used in connection with the business which is necessary for the benefit of the winding up, the premises ought to be returned to the landlord. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant in Company Application No. 543 of 1999 has also made a prayer that the official liquidator be directed to unseal the premises and the possession be given to the applicant therein. Learned counsel has pointed out to the plaint filed by the applicant in Company Application No. 280 of 1999 and submitted that even on the basis of the pleading in the Small Causes Court, it becomes apparent that the applicant in Company Application No. 543 of 1999 are sub-tenants of the company under liquidation. He has further submitted that the premises had, in fact, been taken from the company under liquidation with the express consent of the landlord i.e. the applicant in Company Application No. 280 of 1999. He, therefore, submits that Company Application No. 280 of 1999 ought to be dismissed and Company Application No. 543 of 1999 deserves to be made absolute.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the pleadings in the Small Causes Court clearly shows that the applicant in Company Application No. 280 of 1999 has admitted that the company under liquidation has shifted the office from the premises in dispute. It is also admitted that the applicant in Company Application No. 543 of 1999 started a business of preparing spices and pickles and other food products in the suit premises. It is also admitted that the premises were given on the express consent of the landlord, however, under the pressure and undue influence of his father who happens to be the maternal uncle of the managing director of the company under liquidation. Keeping the aforesaid facts in view it becomes apparent that the premises have been let out to the company under liquidation in the year 1980. It also becomes apparent that since 1986 the applicant in Company Application No. 543 of 1999 has been inducted into the premises. Merely because the company in Company Application No. 543 of 1999 happens to be a sister concern of the company under liquidation, it cannot be said that the company under liquidation is in possession or was in possession at the time when the winding up order was passed. Such being the position, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna and Another Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay and Another, , relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in Company Application No. 280 of 1999 would be wholly inapplicable. It is not the case of the official liquidator that the premises are required for carrying on business for the benefit of the winding up.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in Company Application No. 280 of 1999. The same is hereby dismissed. Company Application No. 543 of 1999 is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a).

The official liquidator to take charge of any assets which may be found in the premises which are sealed. It is made clear that the observations made above shall not be taken into consideration while the case is being decided in the Small Causes Court.

Certified copy expedited.