RAVINDRA ISHWARDAS SETHNA Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the matter brooked no delay, after granting special leave to appeal, we proceeded to hear tile appeal on merits. When the hearing was over, we pronounced the following order and stated that the reasons would follow. The order reads as under :

(2.) On a winding up petition filed tinder the Companies Act, 1956, a learned Company Judge of the Bombay High Court made an order on September 23, 1974 winding up Chit Centre Private Ltd. ('Company' for short). The Company had its office in shops bearing Nos. 8 and 9 on the ground floor of the building formerly known as 'Jagmohan Building No. 2' or as 'Ayaz Mansion' now known as 'Ram Kutir'. On the winding up order being made, the Official Liquidator who was appointed As Liquidator of the Company while taking possession of the assets of the Company also took possession of the office premises of the Company. It is in this manner that the Liquidator acquired possession of shops Nos. 8 and 9, the premises involved in this appeal. Subsequently, the Liquidator sought direction of the Court on April 25, 1979 whether the premises should be let out on lease or licence or whether the furniture and fixtures in the premises should be sold? The Court gave a direction that the premises be given on caretaker basis after obtaining a proper document on a compensation not less than Rs. 2,250 per month. Pursuant to this direction the Liquidator invited offers from persons willing to occupy the premises on terms and conditions laid down by the Court. On July 2, 1980, the Liquidator sought the direction of the Court whether to accept the offer of M/s. Modern Caterers represented by respondent No. 2 herein, Smt. Sabita V. Adapa. The Company Judge by his order dated July 3. 1980 directed the Liquidator to accept the offer as modified by the Court, of the second respondent. The Liquidator thereupon entered into an agreement on July 29, 1980 with the second respondent and gave possession of the premises to the second respondent on terms and conditions set out in the agreement.

(3.) Appellants herein are the landlords of the building of which the premises involved in this appeal formed part. Appellants took out Judge's summons praying for a direction to the Liquidator to terminate the care"taker's agreement entered into with the 2nd respondent under the directions of the Court, and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the appellants. There were other prayers in the Judge's summons with which we are not concerned in this appeal.