TMI Blog1967 (12) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave filed a suit for possession of certain premises consisting of three plots, included in premises at 38, Shankar Shet Road, Poona. The petitioners claim to be the owners of this property and they let it out to the respondents on 22nd August, 1946, for a period of 20 years under a registered lease deed and that the standard rent of the premises is Rs. 500 per mensem. The petitioners allege that the respondents are in arrears of rent and have not complied with a notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The claim of the petitioners has been opposed by the respondents on various grounds. On 3rd July, 1963, the petitioners made an application to the trial court for amendment of the plaint by adding two grounds for ejectment, namely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds. Having come to that conclusion, he, however, refused to allow the application on the ground that leave of the winding up court was not taken for filing the amendment application under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, as such leave had been taken in respect of the suit itself, the suit against the respondents having been instituted after they had been ordered to be wound up. Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1 of 1956, reads as under : "446. (1) When a winding up order has been made or the official liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. In particular, we would refer to section 232. Section 232 appears to us to be supplementary to section 171 by providing that any creditor (other than Government) who goes ahead, notwithstanding a winding-up order or in ignorance of it, with any attachment, distress, execution or sale, without the previous leave of the court, will find that such steps are void. The reference to 'distress' indicates that leave of the court is required for more than the initiation of original proceedings in the nature of a suit in an ordinary court of law. Moreover, the scheme of the application of the company's property in the pari passu satisfaction of its liabilities, envisaged in section 211 and other sections of the Act, cannot be made to work in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applying for adjournments or extension of time for complying with the orders of the court. In my opinion, once leave of the winding up court is obtained to commence or proceed with the suit or other legal proceedings, no application in the progress of that suit or legal proceeding will require fresh leave of the winding up court, and were it otherwise, it would lead to absurd results. An application for leave to amend the plaint is one such application and I hold that it does not require fresh leave of the winding up court. The learned trial judge has on this ground wrongly failed to exercise jurisdiction to allow amendment of the plaint which, but for this ground, he was willing to allow. It has been contended on behalf of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded in it. The position under section 20( c ) is very clear. If it is shown by the plaintiff that the cause of action has arisen wholly or in part within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the trial court, the trial court would be entitled to deal with the suit." Mr. Dalvi has also relied on Mussummat Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [1888] LR 15 IA 156 ; ILR 16 Cal. 98, 102 (PC) . A passage at pages 157-158 reads : "Now the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in section 12, to show that conditions have arisen which have taken away the protection of the tenant and removed the impediment in the way of the landlord recovering possession. In my opinion, the grounds of ejectment are not a part of the cause of action in such suit. A judgment of my learned brother, Bal J., dated June 28, 29, 1967, in Special Civil Application No. 112 of 1967, has just been brought to my notice. I will reproduce two passages in the said judgment showing that Bal J. also took the same view that I am taking in this matter : " . . . Secondly the appellate court was in error in holding that the landlady had no cause of action for filing the suit unless her reasonable and bona fide requirement actually existed at the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
