SUDARSAN CHITS (1) LTD. Vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M.P. Nos. 14297 of 1986 and 6446 of 1987 are filed by M/s Sudarsan Chits (I) Ltd. under Section 446(3) read with Section 391(6) of the Companies Act and Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules. The company is a tenant of the 2nd Respondent in both the cases. In C.M.P. No. 14297 of 1986 the company is a tenant of a building R. No. 5 -1 -1949, Secunderabad. In C.M.P. No. 6446 of 1987 the company is a tenant of the 2nd Respondent in the said petition of a, building belonging to the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent in both the petitions have separately initiated proceedings against the company. The company is in arrears of rent to the landlord. So the landlord (the 2nd Respondent in both the petitions) has initiated proceedings against the company, for eviction. The Petitioner states that the 2nd Respondent in both the cases filed the petitions for eviction without the sanction of the Company Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act and so the eviction proceedings initiated are unsustainable and deserve to be dismissed. The prayer in C.M.P. 14297 of 1986 is to transfer R.C. 112 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller, Secunderabad to this Court and to stay all further proceedings therein. The prayer in C.M.P. 6446 of 1987 is to transfer and dispose of H.R.C. 26/86, Munsiff's Court, Kolar, and to stay all further proceedings of the said case. The landlord of the Secunderabad building -second Respondent in C.M.P. 14297 of 1986 has filed C.M.P. No. 17300 of 1986 praying for grant of leave for the proceedings already initiated as R.C. 112 of 1986, on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad.

(2.) IN view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sudarsan Chits (I) Ltd. v. G. Sukumaran Pillai : A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1579 the winding up proceedings in respect of the Petitioner -company is effectively subsisting, though it may be inoperative for the time being (page 1583, paragraph 13). Since the winding up order has been made in respect of the Petitioner -company, the question that arises for consideration is whether the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner company for eviction under the Rent Control Act, can be proceeded with against the company without the leave of court? Counsel for the Respondents contended that no leave of court is necessary for filing a petition for eviction of a company in liquidation.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner, Mr. Dandapani, invited our attention to a decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asia Udyog (P) Ltd., 1984 (55) CompCas 187 and submitted that the decision of this Court in M/s Joshi Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Case, I.L.R. 1981 Ker 38 :, 50 C.C. 802 :, 80 R.C.R. 241 requires re -consideration. We perused through the said decision with care. In the Delhi decision the question was whether the proceeding before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which is admittedly by way of a suit, required leave of the winding up court? It should be stated that the proceedings under the 1971 Act are by way of suit, the learned Judges found that the nature of the proceedings is such that they are ordinarily exercisable by Civil Courts and that the Act of 1971 only created a special forum. On these premises, the court further held that but for the creation of separate forum, the proceeding under the 1971 Act are of such a nature, which Would ordinarily be dealt with by ordinary courts of law and so can be dealt with by winding up courts and leave will have to be obtained to initiate proceedings against the company. On facts we should state that the decision of the Delhi High Court in L.I.C. of India case, 1984 (55) CompCas 187 is distinguishable. The learned Judges posed" the question at page 198 as follows: