Sick industrial company protection does not stay landlord eviction proceedings, and status must be decided under the special Act.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not automatically stay a landlord's eviction proceedings against a tenant merely because the tenant claims to be a sick industrial company; the statutory suspension is confined to proceedings of the kind expressly covered by the section. The text also notes that the question whether an undertaking is a sick industrial company lies within the special mechanism under the Act and is not for the Rent Controller to determine after recording evidence. An observation conferring that jurisdiction on the Rent Controller is therefore legally untenable and is set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether eviction proceedings against a tenant claiming to be a sick industrial company were liable to be stayed under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; (ii) whether the Rent Controller could decide the question whether the tenant-company was a sick industrial company after recording evidence.

Issue (i): whether eviction proceedings against a tenant claiming to be a sick industrial company were liable to be stayed under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: Section 22(1) suspends specified proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress and appointment of a receiver. A landlord's eviction proceeding against a tenant, even if the tenant is a sick industrial company, does not fall within those categories and is not intended to be automatically stalled by the statutory protection.

Conclusion: The request to stay the eviction proceedings was rejected and the proceedings were held not to be covered by section 22(1).

Issue (ii): whether the Rent Controller could decide the question whether the tenant-company was a sick industrial company after recording evidence.

Analysis: The determination whether an undertaking is a sick industrial company lies within the special mechanism created by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. That question does not fall within the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, and an observation allowing the Rent Controller to decide that status issue was legally untenable.

Conclusion: The observation that the Rent Controller could decide the sick-industrial-company status was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on the main prayer for stay of eviction proceedings, but the impugned observation on jurisdiction to determine sick-industrial-company status was corrected.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not automatically stay a landlord's eviction proceeding against a sick industrial company tenant, and the statutory question of sick-industrial-company status must be determined by the special forum under that Act.

---