VINAYAK M DESHPANDE AND TEXPOLINE POONA P LTD Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ECOLINE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Company Application No. 280 of 1999 and Company Application No. 543 of 1999.

(2.) 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.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay [1983] 54 Comp Cas 702 ; AIR 1983 SC 1061, 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.