JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 68 (d) read with Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909, praying to

(i) an order directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- to the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras, towards rental arrears for the period from May 2009 to April 2013 (48 months x Rs.11,000/-);

(b) an order directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras, being the rental arrears for the period from May 2013 to January 2014 (9 months x Rs.25,000/-);

(c) an order directing the third respondent to pay monthly rent @ Rs.25,000/- to the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras, per month from February 2014 onwards.)

This application has been filed by the Official Assignee under Section 68(d) read with Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, seeking direction to the third respondent to pay rent for the premises, belonging to the insolvents, in his occupation.

2. The insolvents sought for adjudication under Section 9(f) read with Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, on the ground of inability to pay the debts. Being a debtors’ petition an order of adjudication was passed by the learned Master of this Court on 21.10.2010. Thereafter, the Official Assignee took charge of the property. The third respondent in this application one Mr.Susai Raj, claimed to be a tenant under the insolvents on a monthly rent of Rs.11,000/-, pursuant to a tenancy agreement dated 19.08.2004. He had also claimed that he has paid an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. Apart from the above, the wife of the third respondent Mrs.Rosline, who figures as the second respondent in this application, filed a Claim Petition before the Official Assignee in Claim No.244 of 2013, seeking adjudication of her claim for Rs.69,00,000/- paid as advance under a sale agreement dated 06.01.2010. Apart from making a claim before the Official Assignee the said Rosline, the second respondent herein, had also filed a suit in CS No.397 of 2013 on the file of this Court seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, the said suit is pending. In the interregnum, the said Rosline also filed Applications in the above IP 94 of 2010, in Application Nos.141 of 2013 and 119 of 2014 seeking condonation of delay of 1247 days in filing a petition to set aside the adjudication order dated 21.10.2010 and for stay of the public auction. A third Application in Application No.256 of 2013 was also filed by her seeking execution of Sale Deed, pursuant to the Agreement of Sale dated 06.01.2010.

4. All the above applications were dismissed by the Insolvency Court on 01.06.2015. Aggrieved, the second respondent herein filed three Appeals in OSA Nos.154 to 156 of 2015. The said appeals came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.11.2016, the Division Bench reserved the rights of the second respondent to be decided in the Civil Suit, namely CS No.397 of 2013 filed by her. The Appeals were disposed of with the above reservation. The dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in seeking to set aside the adjudication was confirmed.

5. Even during the pendency of the above applications, the Official Assignee had filed the instant application seeking (i) to pay a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- towards rent for the period between May 2009 and April 2013 (48 months) at Rs.11,000/- per month; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- being the rental arrears for the period from May 2013 to January 2014 at Rs.25,000/- per month; and (iii) to continue to pay rent at Rs.25,000/- per month.

6. This application is resisted by respondents 2 and 3, who are the husband and wife, contending that the occupation of the third respondent of the premises being in part performance of the agreement dated 06.01.2010, the liability to pay rents had ceased. It is also claimed that the second respondent had parted with a huge sum of Rs.69,00,000/- in favour of the insolvents to enab