Company liquidation and landlord possession rights prevail when premises are no longer needed and tenancy transfer lacks consent.

Where premises were no longer required in a company liquidation, the Official Liquidator could not resist surrender to the landlord merely because eviction proceedings were pending elsewhere. The landlord's independent right to recover possession was upheld, and objections based on possible renewal or transfer of tenancy rights failed because landlord's consent was absent, which was necessary for any transfer under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The argument that creditors had to be heard was also rejected, as the winding-up stage had passed and the issue was confined to handing over unused premises. Possession was directed to be handed over, subject to disposal of movables and storage for unsold articles.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Official Liquidator was bound to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord when the premises were no longer required for the company in liquidation.

Analysis: The premises were found to be no longer required for the company in liquidation, and the company's winding up had already been ordered. In such circumstances, the landlord's independent remedy to seek possession could not be defeated merely because eviction proceedings were also pending elsewhere. The objection based on possible renewal or transfer of tenancy rights was rejected because the landlord's consent was absent, which was necessary for any transfer under section 56 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The plea that creditors had to be heard was also rejected, as the winding-up stage had already passed and the question before the Court concerned surrender of premises no longer needed for liquidation purposes.

Conclusion: The Official Liquidator was directed to hand over possession of the premises to the landlord, subject to steps for disposal of movables and storage arrangements for any unsold articles.

---