KHANWILKAR A.M., J.: - By way of present application, applicant M/s. Videocon International Limited has approached this Court seeking a direction against the Official Liquidator to forthwith remove the seals put by him on the office premises being Room No. 33 on the third floor in the building known as Ajaydeep situated at 240, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) and permit the applicant to enter the same accuse the said premises as tenant thereof.

2. Briefly stated, the said premises were owned and possessed by M/s. Magatul Industries Limited (company in liquidation hereinafter referred to as the company). The petitioner M/s. Sarigam Containers Private Limited, one of the creditors of the said company in liquidation had issued statutory notice on 26th July, 1996. As the demand remained unfulfilled, the petitioner proceeded to file Company Petition No. 14 of 1997 praying for winding up of the company, on or about 25th October. 1996/28th November, 1996.

3. The said company petition was accepted by the Company Judge on 16th January, 1997, where after the company entered appearance in the said proceedings. During the pendency of the said company petition, however, the company executed rent note on 20 rupees stamp paper on 13th June, 1997.

4. The said document gives the description of the premises as all part and parcel of Office Room No. 33 on the 3rd floor admeasuring 431 square feet and the address, an indicated above: It is mentioned therein that the company is owner of No. 806 equity shares of Rs. 10/ - each bearing Nos. 15639 to 16444 and 4838 Loan Bond Certificates of Rs. 5/- each bearing Nos. 77785 to 82632 of Deepak Talib Estate Private Limited. Consequent to the company holding of said equity shares and loan bond certificates, had been allotted the said office premises and had every right to lease out the same. It is then stated that the company has let out and leased the said premises to the applicant with effect from the date of Rent Note (i.e. 13th June, 1997) on terms and conditions mentioned therein. The monthly rent .vas fixed at Rs. 2500/-. The tenure of the lease was fixed as 11 months. It is noted that the applicant had paid a sum of Rs. 27, 500/- towards advance of 11 months rent to the company. It is also provided that the said premises have been granted to the applicant for its office use and the applicant were to be entitled to sub-lease or assign the said premises to anybody and the company had no objection for the same. The other term in the said agreement which needs to be adverted to is that of actual possession of the premises was handed over to the applicant and the applicant was occupying it as t office premises. The Rent Note was executed at Mumbai. The 11 months term of lease deed was to expire on 12th May, 1998.

5. Significantly, it is noticed that supplementary lease agreement was executed on 20 rupees stamp paper on 14th January, 1998 reiterating the terms specified in the earlier agreement and extending the lease for further period on same terms and conditions.

6. The above noted company petition eventually came to be admitted on 3rd March, 1998.

7. It is also noticed that the applicant sent letter dated 5th May, 1998 to the company , requesting for renewal of lease on same terms I and conditions in respect of the said premises which was to expire on 12th May, 1998 as per the supplementary agreement dated 14th January, 1998. No further communication or document has been placed on record to indicate whether that request was formally accepted by the company or otherwise.

8. The case of the applicant is that the company extended the lease term for further period on same terms and conditions. Be that as it may, the winding up order came to be passed by the Company Judge in the pending company petition on 12th January, 1999.

9. Acting upon the aforesaid order, the Official Liquidator proceeded to take over possession of estate and properties of the company. In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document