Landlord's claim for possession in Insolvency Resolution Process upheld; Resolution Professional's rent obligations clarified.

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, allowed the landlord's claim for possession of land in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, directing the Resolution Professional to hand over the land and pay Rs.1 Lakh in costs. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision but set aside the cost imposition, clarifying the Resolution Professional's obligation to pay current rent during the Resolution Process and consider renegotiating terms with the landlord.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Claim by the landlord for possession of the land in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
2. Objection raised by the Resolution Professional regarding the landlord's claim.
3. Adjudicating Authority's decision to allow the landlord's claim and direct the Resolution Professional to hand over the land.
4. Dispute over the necessity of the premises for the Corporate Debtor's operations.
5. Decision regarding the imposition of costs on the Resolution Professional.
6. Clarification on payment of dues and possession of the land during the Resolution Process.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute between the landlord, referred to as the 1st Respondent, and the Resolution Professional in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a company. The landlord filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking direction to reclaim the land from the Corporate Debtor, 'S. K. Wheels Pvt. Ltd.', which was a third party property under 'Amar Universal Private Limited.'

2. The Resolution Professional objected to the landlord's claim, citing that 'Amar Universal Private Limited' did not have complete rights over the land or had outstanding dues. The Adjudicating Authority noted a civil suit pending in court and the agreement stipulating the payment of tenancy/license fees by the Corporate Debtor to the landlord.

3. The Adjudicating Authority, the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, allowed the landlord's claim, directing the Resolution Professional to hand over the land to the landlord within a week and pay a cost of Rs.1 Lakh. The Resolution Professional argued the necessity of the premises for the Corporate Debtor's operations in the automobile industry.

4. The Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the order but set aside the imposition of costs on the Resolution Professional. It clarified that the Resolution Professional must pay the current rent for the period of the Resolution Process as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and determine the landlord's claim for renegotiation.

5. The Tribunal modified the order, directing the Resolution Professional to communicate the claim amount to the landlord for the current period and allowing renegotiation of terms. The decision to impose a cost of Rs.1 Lakh on the Resolution Professional was set aside, concluding the appeal with these observations and directions.

---