Moratorium protection for occupied business premises bars eviction and preserves corporate debtor possession under insolvency law.

During the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, premises in the corporate debtor's occupation were protected from eviction or disturbance even though the premises were not owned by it and were used for business operations. The commentary states that section 14(1)(d) barred interference with such possession so the corporate debtor could continue as a going concern. It also notes that disputes over title or proprietary rights were not to be decided in IBC proceedings, and that any liquidation or sale consequences had to follow the insolvency framework. On that basis, the directions to hand over possession of one wing and to restrain eviction from another wing were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, during the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the corporate debtor could not be disturbed from premises not owned by it but used for its business, and whether the resolution professional was entitled to seek return of possession and restraint against action under the SARFAESI Act.

Analysis: Although the premises did not belong to the corporate debtor, the protection under section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 barred eviction or disturbance of the corporate debtor from premises in its occupation during the moratorium. The dispute over title or the appellant's proprietary rights was not required to be decided in proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The premises were to be protected so that the corporate debtor could continue as a going concern, and the liquidation or sale consequences were to be considered only in the manner contemplated by the insolvency framework.

Conclusion: The direction to hand over possession of the B Wing and the restraint against evicting the corporate debtor from the A Wing were upheld, and the appeal failed.

---