( 1 ) THIS application was moved seeking direction in the case of navjivan Mills Company Limited (in liquidation) that the Official Liquidator hands over possession of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 375 of village Kalol, Taluka kalol, Dist. Mehsana to the applicants and that the Official Liquidator be restrained from accepting any offer for the purchase of the land in question in pursuance of the advertisement given in a local daily SANDESH for the sale of properties on as is where is basis.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the applicant, the land in question was given on lease by the predecessor-in-title of the applicant on 30-3-1933 at annual rent of Rs. 155. 00 per annum. Lease was for an indefinite period. Accordingly, it is contended, that the period of lease is from year to year. The company has been ordered to be wound up. The premises are no more required for the companys business and therefore, the applicants-landlords have become entitled to the possession of the land. In these circumstances, prayer has been made for delivery of possession to the applicants.

( 3 ) IT is urged by Mr. Thakore, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that the land in question is property to which Rent Act applies and under the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the rent Act) a tenant is prohibited to sub-let to whole or part or. any of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any manner his interest therein unless there is a contract to contrary. Notwithstanding order of winding up until company is dissolved a company continues to exist and the Official Liquidator as a tenant. The company in liquidation administered by Liquidator is inhibited by the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Rent Act. He pointed out that notification issued under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 15 of the Rent Act will not govern the present case unless the proposed transfer of assets of the company do not fall within either of exception carved out in notification dated 28-4-1969, issued under the said proviso. He, therefore, contends that for the present the Official Liquidator as a tenant be prohibited from transferring the property leased to him.

( 4 ) COMING to the prayer about delivery of possession, Mr. Thakore stated that in view of the aforesaid legal position, as the other assets of the company may be occupying the land in question, and it may be required by the company, in liquidation for that purpose, he does not press for the recovery of possession immediately at present reserving his right to ask for possession at future date when the occasion for making such prayer arises. He restricted his prayer for restraining the Official liquidator from transferring the land independent of companys business as a going concern.

( 5 ) MR. Mehta learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, a secured creditor of the company in liquidation, opposes the application on two-fold grounds. Firstly that as the property in question is governed by the Rent Act, no civil suit would lie for recovery of possession except in accordance with the Rent Act. In view of Sec. 28 of the Rent Act, exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the prayer for recovery of possession rest with the Tribunal specified therein and not with the civil court of ordinary jurisdiction, therefore, this Court cannot entertain this application. He also urges that sale by the Official Liquidator of the assets of the company under the directions of the Court does not guarantee the title of the company in assets put to sale. A buyer purchases the property at its own risk. If the company has no title the purchaser may not get any title, without any right to get any diminution in consideration or return of his money. Therefore, the Court ought not to stay the sale of the companys assets whether it has any interest in it or not. Otherwise, it would result in depleting the realisation if the Court were to determine this question. He placed reliance in