JUDGMENT- Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.:---The facts involved in all these appeals are the same and, therefore, it would be convenient to decide them together. Appeal No. 518 of 2000 and Appeal No. 519 of 2000 are directed against the judgment of the Company Judge allowing Company Application No. 517 of 1999 in Company Petition No. 588 of 1991 requiring the Official Liquidator to hand over vacant possession of the land and factory premises of the company in liquidation to the landlord. Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 1993 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th August, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 2369 of 1993 dismissing the Writ Petition summarily.

2. Appellant in Appeal No. 518 of 2000 and respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 519 of 2000 is the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”). Appellant in Appeal No. 519 of 2000 and respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 518 of 2000 is the Special Recovery Officer. Receiver for M/s. Delmot Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 1 in both the appeals is the petitioner in Company Petition No. 588 of 1991. Respondent No. 2 in both the appeals is M/s. Delmot Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the company”). Respondent No. 4 in both the appeals is the landlord, who had leased his premises to the company (hereinafter referred to as “the landlord”). The Bank has filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 1993 against the landlord and the company. The other two respondents in the Letters Patent Appeal are formal parties.

3. The short question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether tenancy rights of a company in liquidation are capable of being transferred, assigned or attached.

4. The landlord leased land admeasuring approximately 9779 square yards on 27th November, 1975 to the company. On 30th April, 1996, Special Civil Suit No. 163 of 1986 was filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane by the landlord for eviction of the company. A Written Statement was filed by the company, wherein it was pleaded that by reason of section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Act”) the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On 11th March, 1992, the Bank filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against the Company and its Directors claiming an amount of Rs. 80.11 lakhs with interest thereupon. The Bank claimed that it had advanced this amount by way of loans against the security of charge against the plant, machinery and leasehold rights of the company. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by the Co-operative Court on the same day restraining the company from alienating its assets. A Commissioner was appointed by the Co-operative Court to make an inventory of the assets of the company. The Report submitted by the Commissioner discloses that the movables in the factory premises were worth Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs. On 4th December, 1992, the Co-operative Court ordered attachment before judgment of the tenancy rights of the land and factory premises at Mira-Bhayandar Road, District Thane and goodwill of the company. The Co-operative Court appointed a Receiver on 11th December, 1992 in respect of the land and factory premises. The Receiver took possession of the same on 12th December, 1992.

5. The Bank made an application for being added as a party to the Special Civil Suit No. 163 of 1986 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. This application was rejected on 6th April, 1993. Aggrieved by this, the bank filed Writ Petition No. 1913 of 1993 which was rejected on 3rd August, 1993 holding specifically that there was no assignment of tenancy rights by the company to the bank. Letters Patent Appeal No. 124 of 1993 filed there against was also rejected.

6. In the meantime, the landlord filed Appeal No. 57 of 1993 on 15th June, 1993 against the order of the Co-operative Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document