Tribunal Rules Landlord Cannot Collect Rent During Moratorium Period

The Tribunal held that no rent was payable to the landlord during the moratorium period and that the NCLT had exceeded its jurisdiction. The act of placing padlocks on the premises by the landlord was deemed a violation of the moratorium provisions. The Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order and disposed of the appeal with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the 'said premises' of JOML being used as the Registered Office of the corporate debtor JVL Agro could be 'recovered' by the landlord JOML during the subsistence of moratorium after the initiation of CIRP.
2. Whether any monthly rent was agreed upon and is payable to the landlord JOML by the corporate debtor JVL Agro whether before the imposition of moratorium or during the moratorium period.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Recovery of 'Said Premises' During Moratorium
The Tribunal examined whether the 'said premises' owned by JOML and used by JVL Agro as its registered office could be recovered by JOML during the moratorium period. It was established that JVL Agro had been using the premises since February 14, 2018, based on a 'no objection' letter from JOML. This was corroborated by filings with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and complaints made by the Resolution Professional (RP) to local authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the premises were indeed in possession of JVL Agro at the time of CIRP initiation on July 25, 2018.

Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) prohibits the recovery of any property occupied by the corporate debtor during the moratorium period. The Tribunal found that JOML's act of placing padlocks on the premises on July 28, 2020, was a clear violation of this provision. The Tribunal noted that the RP had not considered the renting of the premises critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor, thus Section 14(2-A) of the IBC was not applicable.

Issue 2: Agreement and Payment of Rent
The Tribunal analyzed whether any rent was agreed upon and payable for the use of the 'said premises'. The 'no objection' letter from JOML did not mention any rent payment. JOML's email dated August 28, 2018, during the moratorium period, proposed a rent agreement starting from August 1, 2018, but there was no evidence of any prior agreement or payment of rent. The Tribunal found that the purported NOC indicating a rent agreement was of dubious origin and not credible.

The Tribunal concluded that no rent was agreed upon or paid before the CIRP initiation. The issue of rent payment arose only after the corporate debtor entered CIRP. The Tribunal also referenced Section 14(2-A) of the IBC, which requires the RP to consider certain supplies critical, which was not the case here.

Jurisdiction of NCLT
The Tribunal addressed whether the NCLT had jurisdiction to adjudicate the rental dispute. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal noted that NCLT's jurisdiction is limited to matters directly related to the insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor. The rental dispute did not fall within this scope, making the NCLT's direction for rent assessment and payment beyond its jurisdiction.

Conclusion
The Tribunal held that no rent was payable to JOML during the moratorium period and that the NCLT had overstepped its jurisdiction. The insertion of padlocks by JOML was a violation of the moratorium provisions. The Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order and disposed of the appeal accordingly, with no order as to costs.

---