Tenancy disclaimer in winding-up: no fresh tenancy was proved, so the company court could reject the claimant's tenancy.

In winding-up proceedings, a company court may summarily determine whether a tenancy exists before allowing disclaimer of the property. Where the original tenant's occupation continued from 1970 and there was no proof of termination or surrender before the winding-up order, receipts relied on by a claimant did not establish a fresh tenancy. Rent payment by the original tenant even after the alleged transfer reinforced that no new tenancy had been created. A tenancy cannot arise by judicial order without the landlord's consent, and the disclaimer was therefore properly allowed while the appellant's tenancy claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company court was justified in allowing disclaimer of the tenancy under the winding-up provisions on the basis that the earlier tenant's tenancy had not been terminated and no fresh tenancy in favour of the appellant had been proved.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the original tenant had occupied the premises since 1970 and there was no proof of termination or surrender of that tenancy before the winding-up order. The receipts relied upon by the appellant did not establish a fresh tenancy, especially when rent was shown to have been paid by the original tenant even in August 2002. In the absence of surrender by the original tenant, no new tenancy could be created in favour of the appellant. The Court also held that the company court could decide such questions summarily in the winding-up process and that a tenancy relationship cannot be created by judicial order without the landlord's consent.

Conclusion: The disclaimer application was rightly allowed, and the appellant's claim to tenancy failed.

---