Court rules official liquidator has saleable interest in leasehold lands, directs disclaimer against lessors. Purchasers liable for fair rent.

The court determined that the official liquidator had a saleable interest in the leasehold lands, including those leased by Bindu Rawla. The court exercised discretion in directing disclaimer against the lessors and held that the purchasers were liable to pay rent based on fair rent determined through independent evidence. The matter was remitted for the company judge to pass an appropriate order, with the appellant directed to continue depositing a specified amount monthly pending the final determination of fair rent. Cross-objections were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Saleable interest of the official liquidator in leasehold lands.
2. Extent of the saleable interest.
3. Court's discretion to direct disclaimer.
4. Rights of the purchasers in respect of the leasehold lands.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Saleable Interest of the Official Liquidator in Leasehold Lands:
The trial judge determined that the official liquidator had a saleable interest in the leasehold lands. The leases contained an option for renewal, which the official liquidator exercised before the original lease periods expired, as permitted by the court. This renewal was within the court's jurisdiction to extend.

2. Extent of the Saleable Interest:
Regarding the inclusion of land leased by Bindu Rawla, the trial judge noted that despite the sale notice's description, all parties and the court proceeded on the basis that the sale covered the entire premises. This was evident from Bindu Rawla's application under section 446, which assumed the sale included her leasehold lands and requested retention of sale proceeds to meet her claims against the company.

3. Court's Discretion to Direct Disclaimer:
The lessors argued that there was an active representation that the leases were subsisting. The trial judge held that the lessors had a duty to speak because third-party rights were being created, especially since the court was involved. Disclaimer was not a right for lessors but a matter of court discretion, which was exercised against the lessors.

4. Rights of the Purchasers in Respect of the Leasehold Lands:
The court accepted the appellant's submission that they were liable to pay rent only under the lease terms. However, the court rejected the appellant's conclusion that the rent should be based on original rates. The company in liquidation had the right to continue under the lease after 30-6-1990, with the court fixing the terms and conditions if the parties failed to agree. The court cited Martin Burn India Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India, which allowed the court to fix fair rent if the renewal clause was exercised without mutual agreement on terms.

Valuer's Assessment and Fair Rent:
A valuer assessed fair rent for the lands, which was contested. The court noted that appointing a valuer to perform judicial functions was inappropriate. Instead, the court should allow parties to present independent evidence, including expert testimony, to determine fair rent. The trial judge's interim measure directed the purchasers to pay Rs. 58,000 per month until fair rent was determined.

Disposition:
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the matter was remitted to the company judge to pass an appropriate order based on independent evidence. The appellant was directed to continue depositing Rs. 58,000 per month, subject to adjustment based on the final determination of fair rent. The cross-objections were dismissed as not maintainable. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

---