SATINDER PAL SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the learned Company Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal. It has been contended by Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant that the application for recovery of possession filed by the respondent was not legal proceedings as contemplated under Section 446 of the Companies Act. He has also contended that the respondent was not entitled for possession of the premises merely because the premises were taken for the purpose of personal office of the Managing Director of the appellant, who has since expired and the premises were not utilised for a long period of time. It was vehemently contended before us that the respondent failed to make out a ground available for eviction under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was also contended that the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act will prevail over the provision of the Companies Act as Delhi Rent Control Act was a special as well as subsequent Act and the Company Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to eviction of a tenant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Smt. Nirmala R. Bafna Vs. Khandesh Spinning & Weaving Mill Co. Ltd. : AIR 1993 SC 1380, Dr. S.P. Bhargava Vs. and Electric Steel Co. Ltd. : 1994 (CVIII) Punjab Law Reporter 406, Joshi Trading Co. Vs. Essa Ismail Sait : 1980 (50) Company Cases 801.

(2.) IN sum and substance it was contended that a tenant can only be evicted on the grounds specified in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that too when the landlord is able to establish existence of that particular ground before the Rent Controller. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent before the Company Court would not be maintainable and the only remedy of the respondent was to file the appropriate case before the Rent Controller under the said Act.

(3.) THE demised premises were taken over by the Official Liquidator pursuant to the order passed by the Company court. Therefore, it was competent for the landlord who had given the premises to the appellant company which has gone into liquidation to move an application before the Company Court seeking possession of such premises. While dealing with the question of maintainability of the application of the respondent, let us turn to Section 446 of the Companies Act, which is as under: