9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y tax till the date of handing over of quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the said land. 2. The Company Application is filed in the following facts and circumstances :- (i)The Applicant is the owner of a large portion of land out of which the said land was given on lease to the Respondent Company under a registered lease deed dated 30th June, 1960 effective from 1st June, 1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 125 for a period of 25 years, with an option to the Respondent Company to obtain renewal of the lease for a further period of 25 years on the Respondent Company giving to the Applicant six months advance notice of its intention to obtain the said renewal and having observed all the conditions of the lease deed. (ii)Pursuant to the said lease deed, the Respondent Company was put in possession of the said land who in course of time constructed factory buildings and installed machinery therein. The Respondent Company had also availed financial facilities from the Canara Bank and in lieu thereof created a charge on the property including the said land in favour of the lender Bank. By an order dated 14th January, 1983 passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 334 of 1979, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months notice in advance. The first 25 years expired on 31st May, 1985. No notice of any nature whatsoever as contemplated under the lease deed was issued by the Respondent Company or the Official Liquidator expressing their intent to get the lease renewed. The lease therefore, stood determined on 31st May, 1985. It is further submitted that even assuming without admitting that the issue of further renewal of lease deed was required to be adjudicated upon, the lease deed at best could only be renewed for a further period of 25 years, i.e., up to 31st May, 2010. Thus, the period of lease (including the renewal period) stood determined on 31st May, 2010 and the Official Liquidator who has stepped into the shoes of the Respondent Company cannot hold on to the said land beyond the entitlement of the Respondent Company. It is submitted that the determination of the lease (including the renewed period of 25 years), by efflux of time has taken place on 31st May, 2010. It is submitted that in view of the determination of the lease, a fresh cause of action has accrued in favour of the Applicant and this situation was not in existence at the time when the order dated 14th December, 2000 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Appeal, the Applicant is entitled to take out the present proceeding under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and in support of his submission that the Applicant is entitled to obtain quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the said land from the Official Liquidator has relied on the decision of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator [2004] 52 SCL 603 (Bom.), wherein it is held that merely because the landlord has instituted Suit for eviction against the tenant, who happens to be Company in liquidation, that alone cannot be the basis of non-suiting the landlord to invoke the present remedy which is an independent and special remedy available to him by virtue of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is further held that the claim of the landlord cannot be resisted, especially when it is established from the record that the premises in question are no longer required for the Company in liquidation. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the Canara Bank has submitted that the said land was mortgaged by the Respondent Company to the Bank. The Bank had filed proceedings for recovery of its dues against the Respondent Company and has also obtained reliefs qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Liquidator admittedly having not used the land since last more than 25 years and not having any intention to use the said land in future, is bound to hand over the said land to the Applicant. The Official Liquidator cannot be permitted to continue enjoyment of the said land beyond the entitlement of the Respondent Company as held in the decision of Patel Engg. Co. Ltd.'s case (supra). As regards the contention that this Court in Company Application No. 526 of 1995 by its order dated 14th December, 2000 had declined to grant possession of the said land to the Applicant and had required the Applicant to adopt appropriate proceedings to recover the possession of the said land, I am of the view that the said decision under the present changed facts in the matter is of no assistance to the Official Liquidator. The said order dated 14th December, 2000 proceeded on the ground that when the Official Liquidator took possession of the said land, the lease was in subsistence. Even after the appointment of the Official Liquidator and the possession of the land being taken by him, the Applicant did not adopt appropriate proceedings on the ground that the lease stood determined. Thus, the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
