SICA moratorium and landlord eviction: possession may be decreed on admissions, while arrears need separate scrutiny.

Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act did not bar a landlord's eviction suit against a sick industrial company, because the moratorium was confined to execution, distress, or similar recovery proceedings and not to possession recovery. On clear pleadings, where the tenant did not specifically deny service of the termination notice and only questioned its legal effect, the Court held that a decree for possession could be granted on admissions without recording evidence. The arrears claim stood on a different footing and was kept in abeyance pending examination of whether it was covered by the rehabilitation scheme, while future mesne profits were to be separately inquired into.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act barred eviction proceedings against a sick industrial company. (ii) Whether a decree for possession could be passed on the basis of admissions without recording evidence. (iii) Whether the claim for arrears of rent was presently barred under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act.

Issue (i): Whether section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act barred eviction proceedings against a sick industrial company.

Analysis: The proceedings for ejectment were held not to fall within the moratorium contemplated by section 22. The protective umbrella of that provision was confined to proceedings of the nature of execution, distress, or similar recovery steps against the property of the company, and not to a landlord's action for eviction. The fact that the tenant was a sick industrial company did not entitle it to continue in possession without payment of rent or prevent the landlord from seeking recovery of the premises.

Conclusion: Section 22 did not bar the eviction suit, and the plea based on sickness under SICA failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a decree for possession could be passed on the basis of admissions without recording evidence.

Analysis: The written statement did not contain a specific denial of service of the termination notice; instead, it challenged only the legal efficacy of the notice. On the pleadings, the notice was treated as served, and the only question was whether it satisfied the contractual requirement in the lease deed. In those circumstances, the Court found that no useful purpose would be served by insisting on evidence before deciding the prayer for possession, and the defence did not disclose a triable issue sufficient to defeat relief on admissions.

Conclusion: A decree for possession could be passed forthwith on the basis of admissions.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim for arrears of rent was presently barred under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act.

Analysis: While the ejectment claim was maintainable, the monetary claim for arrears stood on a different footing. The Court noted that recovery of the arrears would depend on whether the liability had been reflected in the scheme under consideration before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, and until that was examined the claim could not be immediately granted.

Conclusion: The claim for arrears of rent was presently barred or kept in abeyance under section 22.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to immediate possession, but the monetary claim for arrears required further consideration, while the claim for future mesne profits was directed to be enquired into separately.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act does not suspend a landlord's eviction proceedings against a sick industrial company, and a decree for possession may be granted on clear admissions despite a plea founded on SICA.

---