No subsisting lease interest bars repossession claims by later transferees under insolvency protection provisions.

Where a corporate debtor's lease had already been validly cancelled and that cancellation had been unsuccessfully challenged, the debtor retained no subsisting interest in the premises and could not create enforceable third-party rights. A claimant deriving title under a later management contract therefore could not seek repossession, challenge RIICO's possession, or invoke Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because any grievance lay against the corporate debtor and not against the lessor. The order of the Adjudicating Authority was upheld and the appeal was rejected on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, claiming under a management contract executed after cancellation of the lease in favour of the corporate debtor, could seek repossession of the premises and challenge the action of RIICO under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The lease in favour of the corporate debtor had already been cancelled, and the cancellation had been unsuccessfully challenged in the proceedings under the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979. After such cancellation, the corporate debtor no longer had a subsisting right or interest in the premises and therefore could not create enforceable third-party rights in favour of the appellant. The appellant's agreement was entered into after the lease had been terminated, and any grievance arising from that arrangement lay against the corporate debtor rather than against RIICO. In the absence of a surviving right in the property, the appellant could not claim repossession or invoke Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for protection of possession.

Conclusion: The appellant had no enforceable right to repossess the premises or to interfere with RIICO's lawful possession, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Adjudicating Authority was upheld and the appeal was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A party deriving rights from a corporate debtor cannot seek repossession or protection over property after the debtor's lease has been validly cancelled and no subsisting interest remains in the property.

---