Rent Act eviction limits: default, transfer and non-user grounds need strict statutory compliance before possession can be recovered.

Under the Rent Act, eviction for rent default required compliance with the statutory demand-notice mechanism and opportunity to pay; mere non-payment without such notice was insufficient. A claim of unauthorized assignment or transfer also failed where the material showed only an advertisement or proposal for sale, not a completed transfer. Non-user of the leased premises did not justify eviction because the cessation of use was linked to liquidation proceedings and was not the unjustified non-user contemplated by the statute. Winding up of the tenant company, by itself, did not entitle the lessors to immediate possession, since corporate existence continues until dissolution under the Companies Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether eviction could be sought on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Rent Act. (ii) Whether the leasehold rights were liable to forfeiture on the ground of unauthorized assignment or transfer. (iii) Whether eviction was justified on the ground of non-user of the leased premises. (iv) Whether winding up of the company by itself entitled the lessors to recover possession of the leased land.

Issue (i): Whether eviction could be sought on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Rent Act.

Analysis: Protection against eviction for non-payment of rent depends on the statutory scheme requiring a written demand notice and an to make payment. Though rent remained unpaid, the secured creditors were found to have remained ready and willing to pay, and no notice of demand contemplated by the Rent Act was shown to have been served. The direction made by the High Court was not treated as an order satisfying the statutory mechanism for eviction on default.

Conclusion: Eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the leasehold rights were liable to forfeiture on the ground of unauthorized assignment or transfer.

Analysis: The lease deed and the Rent Act were construed together. The Court held that the challenge based on assignment did not succeed because the impugned act relied upon was only an advertisement or proposal for sale, not a completed transfer by the official liquidator. The complaint of unauthorized assignment therefore did not establish a ground for eviction on the facts before the Court.

Conclusion: Eviction on the ground of unauthorized assignment or transfer was not established.

Issue (iii): Whether eviction was justified on the ground of non-user of the leased premises.

Analysis: Non-user under the Rent Act requires unjustified non-user for the statutory period. The Court found that the cessation of use was linked to the liquidation proceedings and did not amount to the kind of unjustified non-user contemplated by the statute. The lease deed itself did not provide for eviction merely because of such non-user.

Conclusion: Eviction on the ground of non-user was not justified.

Issue (iv): Whether winding up of the company by itself entitled the lessors to recover possession of the leased land.

Analysis: Winding up does not immediately extinguish the company's corporate existence. The company continues until dissolution in accordance with the Companies Act, and the Court also noted that revival proceedings were pending. Accordingly, liquidation alone did not create an immediate right to repossess the land.

Conclusion: Winding up by itself did not entitle the lessors to recovery of possession.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's refusal to order eviction failed in the lead matters, while the connected matters were remitted for fresh consideration because their contractual terms and surrounding facts required separate examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Rent Act, eviction on default requires compliance with the statutory notice mechanism, and neither liquidation of the tenant company nor a mere proposal to transfer leasehold rights automatically defeats the tenant's protection absent a completed and legally cognizable ground for eviction.

---