Bona fide disputed rent claim cannot ground winding up when title, possession and liability require civil adjudication.

A winding up petition based on an alleged rent liability was treated as unsuitable where the petitioner's title and right to recover rent were seriously disputed. The Court noted that the lease and sub-lease had long expired, so the petitioner lacked present legal title to create a tenancy or claim rent on that basis. Applying the settled rule that winding up cannot be used to enforce a debt that is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, the Court found the rival claims over possession, rent and mesne profits, together with pending civil suits, required adjudication in ordinary civil proceedings. The petition was therefore not maintainable in company jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding up petition based on an alleged rent liability was maintainable when the petitioner's title and right to recover rent were seriously disputed.

Analysis: The petitioner's lease and sub-lease had expired long before the agreement relied upon, and the Court held that the petitioner had no present legal title to create a tenancy or claim rent on that basis. Although the respondent's conduct and the agreement could not assist the respondent in denying the petitioner's earlier possession entirely, the real question was whether any undisputed debt existed for the purpose of company winding up. The Court applied the settled principle that a winding up petition cannot be used to enforce a debt that is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, and that such a dispute must be left to adjudication in an appropriate civil proceeding. The Court also noted that the competing claims, pending civil suits, and rival assertions over possession, rent and mesne profits made the matter too complex for summary company jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The claim was held to be seriously disputed and not fit for determination in winding up proceedings; the petition was therefore not maintainable.

---