Rent default eviction proceedings are not money-recovery suits and are not barred by sick-company protection.

Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as inapplicable to an eviction proceeding for default in rent and to an order under section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, because such a proceeding is not a suit for recovery of money and the rent-deposit direction is only an interim mechanism within rent litigation. The objection that no notice under section 12(2) had been served also did not defeat the section 11(4) application, because that notice issue goes to the maintainability of the eviction suit at the stage of final adjudication, not to the court's power to decide the interim deposit application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred an eviction proceeding and an order under section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 on the ground of non-payment of rent; (ii) Whether the objection based on absence of notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 could defeat the application under section 11(4).

Issue (i): Whether section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred an eviction proceeding and an order under section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 on the ground of non-payment of rent.

Analysis: Section 22 protects a sick company against suits or proceedings for recovery of money without the Board's consent, but an eviction petition based on default in payment of rent is not the same as a suit for recovery of money. An application under section 11(4) is only an interim rent-deposit mechanism within a rent proceeding and does not answer to the character of a money-recovery suit. The tenant's statutory protection under rent control law may be lost on non-payment of rent, and the court may require deposit of rent or face the consequences provided in the sub-section.

Conclusion: Section 22 did not bar the eviction proceeding or the order under section 11(4), and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection based on absence of notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 could defeat the application under section 11(4).

Analysis: The requirement of notice under section 12(2) goes to the maintainability of the suit for eviction and is to be examined at the stage when the court considers whether eviction should be ordered. It does not prevent the court from entertaining and deciding an application under section 11(4) during the pendency of the suit.

Conclusion: The absence-of-notice objection did not invalidate the application under section 11(4), and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the view that eviction proceedings for non-payment of rent and the consequential rent-deposit order could proceed despite the sick-company protection, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An eviction proceeding for default in rent and an interim order directing deposit of rent under the rent law are not equivalent to a suit for recovery of money, and therefore are not barred by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

---