M. MOHANARANGIAH CHETTY Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the insolvent Mohanarangiah Chetty under the following circumstances. He had been carrying on business in textiles at No. 90 Godown St. Madras for 20 years. He contracted debts in the trade and he was adjudicated insolvent on 21 -1 -1964 on a creditor's petition. During the pendency of the insolvency proceedings, one creditor, Devi Singh, had obtained and order for attachment before judgment of the stock -in -trade in the place of business. Later, the Official assignee took vacant possession thereof on 3 -2 -1964. He has locked up the premises. The insolvent says in the application that there are several businessmen who are prepared to take him as a working partner, if permission could be given by this court to carry on the textile business at No. 90 Godown Street. He says that the persons concerned had promised that the insolvent himself would not have any liability for the loss or debts in the business. He says that if permission is granted he is prepared to make arrangements with the landlord for the running of the business there. He submits that the lease was not for any fixed term and there was no leasehold right to vest in the Official Assignee, and the Official assignee would not be liable for the future rents. He points out that he has a large family and has no other source of income to maintain himself and his family. He undertakes to keep regular accounts and to abide by the directions of the court in the conduct of the business.

(2.) THE application is opposed by the Official Assignee. In the course of the hearing of the petition I felt it desirable to issue notice to the landlady of the premises. She appeared by counsel Sri. A. Subramaniam.

(3.) THE learned Judge followed the decision in Sutton. Dorf, 1932 -2 KB 304. To the same effect as the decision in 1932 -2 KB 304 is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Smith v. Odder, 1949 WN 249. It is unnecessary to go into the facts of these cases in further detail. It insufficient to refer to the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which support the contention. The definition of tenant in S. 2(8) runs thus: