Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
Dhirubhai Ramchandra Patel – Applicant
Versus
Official Liquidator Of The Marsden Spinning – Respondent
R/Company Application No. 294 of 2009 In R/Company Petition No. 205 of 1996 with Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 21-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding property lease and liquidation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguing claims regarding rent arrears and land possession. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. court's analysis on lease validity and implications of the rent act. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. legal debate on applicability of prior judgments and lease terms. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 5. final ruling on case application and dismissal, allowing claims to state systems. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Company Application No.294/2009 is filed by the legal heir of original lessor of land admeasuring 57870 sq. mtrs. situated at survey nos.474 and 476 at Rakhial, District Ahmedabad, Town Planning Scheme No.11, Final Plot No. 15 (here-in-after referred to as “the subject land”).
2. One Ramji Harilal, the predecessor-in-title of the applicant had executed a lease deed on 20.06.1919 through his aunt Ichaben Bapuji Bajibhai, as he was minor at the relevant time in respect of the subject land in favour of Khushaldas Gokaldas.
3. It is the case of the applicant that subsequent to the aforesaid transfer of land in favour of Khushaldas Gokaldas, he executed lease deed on 16.06.1920 in favour of M/s. Marsden Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited in respect of the subject land as per the same terms and conditions of the first lease deed.
4. Thereafter, the said mill was taken into winding up and in the year 1986, management of the said mill was taken over by Gujarat State Textile Corporation Limited (For short “GSTC Ltd.”) as per the provisions of the the Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act,1986’) enacted for revival of 16 sick textile mills.
5. However, GSTC LTd. also could not achieve its object of revival of sick textile mills and was taken to Board For Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for its revival.
6. Thereafter, as per opinion of BIFR, GSTC Ltd. was also ordered to be wound up by this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Pandit, J. As His Lordship was then) vide order dated 6.02.1997 in Company Petition No.205 of 1996.
7. The applicant being a lessor of the land was receiving lease rent of from lessee Khushaldas Gokaldas and thereafter from his legal heirs upto 1986. It is the case of the applicant that after 1986, the applicant has not received any lease rent from the lessee or from the liquidator of GSTC Ltd.(In Liquidation).
8. The applicant has therefore, filed this application with a prayer to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the subject land and has further prayed to direct the Official Liquidator to make the payment of arrears of lease rent due and payable by GSTC Ltd. (In Liquidation) in view of lease agreement dated 20.06.1919. It was also prayed to direct the Official Liquidator to disclaim the subject land in favour of the applicant. The other incidental prayer made by the applicant is to direct the Official Liquidator to clarify as to how the advertisement at Annexure-D was published in Gujarat Samachar newspaper to sell leasehold rights in absence of any order of this Court.
9. This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel, As His Lordship was then) by order dated 24.07.2009 disposed of this Company Application No.294 of 2009 applying the decision in case of Legal Heirs of Deceased Fakir Chand Ambaram Patel v. Official Liquidator of Amruta Mills Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2002(3) GLH 367 as well as the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Jabal C. Lashkari & Ors. vs. Official Liquidators & Ors rendered in OJ Appeal No.66/2006 and allied matters vide order dated 17.10.2008 and it was observed that reliefs as prayed by the applicant cannot be granted. It was pointed out on behalf of the applicant be
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 has an overriding effect to the provisions of other laws and is a complete code determining....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining eviction suits based on lease expiration and the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the....
The court ruled that an unregistered lease does not confer rights, and amendments changing the nature of a petition are impermissible if no enforceable rights exist.
A lease must be explicitly stated as permanent to be considered as such; otherwise, it is interpreted as a lifetime tenancy, allowing for the reversion of possession upon the death of the lessee.
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
In eviction suits, admitted landlord-tenant relationship estops tenant from denying title; landlord needs only prove relationship and grounds, not ownership. Open land leases not protected by rent co....
A statutory body retains no right to resume possession of leased land post-winding up without permission from the Company Court, despite lease cancellation being legally permissible.
The tenancy rights of a statutory tenant, whose contractual tenancy has been terminated but whose possession is protected by the Bombay Rent Act, are not property that vests in the Official Assignee ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
