Sub-tenancy claim in disclaimed property failed for lack of specific landlord consent and proof of enforceable interest.

A claim to sub-tenancy in disclaimed company property failed because prior written consent of the lessor had to relate specifically to the particular sub-letting, and a general or implied permission was insufficient. The materials did not show any specific written consent for the alleged sub-tenancy, nor proof of notice of sub-letting under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant also failed to establish possession or that it was a subsidiary of the company in liquidation within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. No enforceable interest in the disclaimed property was shown, so the vesting order was refused and the landlord's disclaimer remained effective.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant established a sub-tenancy in the disputed guest house so as to claim an interest in the disclaimed property and obtain a vesting order under section 535(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The lease required prior written consent of the lessor for sub-letting, and the exception for subsidiary or sister concerns did not dispense with the need for consent to the particular sub-letting. The materials relied on by the appellant did not show a specific prior written consent by the landlord for the alleged sub-tenancy, nor was notice of sub-letting shown to have been given as contemplated by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The documents produced also did not establish that the appellant was in possession or that it was a subsidiary of the company in liquidation within the meaning of section 4 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove any enforceable interest in the disclaimed property and was not entitled to a vesting order; the landlord's disclaimer was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order under challenge was affirmed, leaving the disclaimer in favour of the landlord undisturbed and the appellant without relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to sub-tenancy cannot be sustained unless the landlord's prior written consent is shown to relate specifically to the particular sub-letting in question; a general or implied consent is insufficient.

---