In liquidation cases, unutilized leasehold properties must be returned to owners upon the fulfillment of specific conditions.

JUDGEMENT

1.Heard ld. counsel Mr. Bharda appearing for the applicant.

2.This Judge's Summons is taken out by Shri Gulamnabi Shakurbhai Ajmeri, owner of the immovable property namely chawl bearing Municipal Census No. 102, Survey Nos. 273/1/94, 273/1/100 and 273/1/101 being Final Plot No. 384 admeasuring 2375 Sq.Ft. consisting of the first and second floors of Ajmera Chambers, Behrampura, Ahmedabad which was let out to M/s The Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation). It is contended that this property belongs to the present applicants. Documentary evidence produced by the applicants shows that this property originally belonged to one Usmanbhai and the same was given on lease to Calico Mills Ltd. (In liquidation). predecessor-in-title of the present applicants namely Shakurbhai Ismail had purchased this property from Shri Usman Nanji under a sale-deed. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that on purchase of the said property, deceased Ajmeri Shakurbhai was getting regular rent from the Mill Company. On death of Shakurbhai, the present applicants, being direct heirs and legal representatives, are claiming the ownership of the property in question. Right, title and interest qua the property claimed by the present applicants have not been challenged by the other side.

3.It has been verified by the O.L. that this specific property is not under any charge of any of the secured creditors. Undisputedly, because of winding up proceedings and order passed by the Court, the business of the Mill Company which had acquired this property on lease, has come to an end. The say of the applicants is that as this property is not required for the purpose of the Company, the same should be handed over back to the landlord. I am satisfied that the applicants are entitled to get the possession of aforesaid immovable property back.

4.Ld. counsel Mr. Bharda, appearing for the applicants has placed reliance on two decisions, namely (i) Ravindra Ishwardas Shethna & Another v/s Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay & Another, reported in 54 Company Cases P.702, and (ii) Industrial Mills Estate, v/s O.L. of Ilac Ltd., decision dated 9.6.2001 rendered by this Court in Company Application No. 303/2000 in Company Petition No. 302/1997. I would like quote relevant observations of the Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna & Anr. (supra) :-

"If the business carried on by a company comes to a standstill as a result of the company being ordered to be wound up, there is no question of the business of the company to be carried on by the liquidator, and that too, for the beneficial winding up of the company.

Whether to carry on the business of the company which is ordered to be wound up is not a matter left to the uncontrolled discretion of the liquidator. The liquidator undoubtedly has the power under S.457 of the Companies Act, 1956 to carry on the business of the company, if it is necessary for the beneficial winding up of the company. And, this power can be exercised not at the discretion of the liquidator, but with the sanction of the Court. The liquidator with the sanction of the court can carry on the business of the company only to the extent that such carrying on of the business is necessary for the beneficial winding up of the company.

Where a company which was carrying on the business of floating prize chit schemes in Bombay in premises taken on a lease of indefinite duration, and upon the company being ordered tobe wound up, the business came to a standstill, the premises were of no use