The court established that upon liquidation of a company, the relationship of landlord-tenant ceases, resulting in unauthorized occupation, warranting interim relief for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 297 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= LAXMICHAND BHAGAJI LTD. THRO' LAXMICHAND BHAGAJI DEPOSITORS - Appellant(s) Versus MADHUBHAI MANISHANKAR DESAI - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPEN C SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SUNIT S SHAH with NV GANDHI for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date : 21/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant – original plaintiff has filed this Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of 2/46 JUDGMENT Civil Procedure Code , challenging the judgment and order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Bardoli below an application Ex.5 in Special Civil Suit No.66 of 2003 whereby the application Ex.5 was rejected. The Appeal From Order has come up for hearing on 23.8.2005. This Court has observed that since the appellant proposed to file Civil Application for interim relief, the hearing of Appeal was adjourned to 26.8.2005. In the meantime, the appellant has filed Civil Application No.7646 of 2005. This Court has admitted the Appeal On 26.8.2005 and notice was issued in Civil Application making it returnable on 12.9.2005. However, the Civil Application No.7647 of 2005 was disposed of by this Court on 18.1.2006 and it was observed therein that allowing this application would tantamount to allowing the Appeal, and therefore, it cannot be entertained. The appellant has filed Civil Application No.3396 of 2007 for fixing 3/46 JUDGMENT the date of hearing. The said application was disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 5.3.2007 and Appeal From Order was fixed for hearing on 4.4.2007.

2. The hearing of Appeal was thereafter adjourned from time to time and ultimately it was effectively heard for the first time on 17.1.2008 and it was observed therein that the Court is of the prima facie view that at this stage, the order regarding handing over possession cannot straightway be passed.

However, the present respondent has been enjoying the property since 1991 and he has not paid a single pie towards rent or occupation charges. The present appellant – original plaintiff has in the injunction application only asked for direction to the respondent – original defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- with the Court from the date of the Suit. The Court was, therefore, of the prima facie view that the said prayer 4/46 JUDGMENT could not be said to be unreasonable or improper. Before any direction was issued while finally disposing of the Appeal From Order, Mr. N.V.Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent prayed for some time to take necessary instructions from the respondent – original plaintiff and hence the matter was adjourned to 24.1.2008 for final disposal. On 24.1.2008, Mr.Gandhi was not present. However, Mr.Amit Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Sunit Shah, learned advocate for the appell