Liquidation jurisdiction over expired licence disputes secures corporate debtor premises against inconsistent parallel proceedings.

A leave and licence arrangement over corporate debtor premises had expired, and no subsisting tenancy was established; the occupant was therefore treated as a licensee in illegal occupation after expiry. In liquidation, the National Company Law Tribunal could exercise residuary jurisdiction over disputes concerning vacation and protection of assets, as the liquidator's duty to preserve and secure the liquidation estate justified directions for possession. A later status quo order from the Court of Small Causes did not prevent the NCLT from acting, because the insolvency framework prevailed over inconsistent parallel proceedings and the status quo order was obtained without full disclosure and without impleading the necessary party.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was a tenant, licensee, or illegal occupant, and whether eviction jurisdiction lay with the Court of Small Causes or the National Company Law Tribunal during liquidation. (ii) Whether the National Company Law Tribunal was justified in directing lock and seal of the premises despite a status quo order passed by the Court of Small Causes.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was a tenant, licensee, or illegal occupant, and whether eviction jurisdiction lay with the Court of Small Causes or the National Company Law Tribunal during liquidation.

Analysis: The arrangement between the parties was found to be a Leave and Licence Agreement, not a tenancy. The original licence expired and the renewal granted during CIRP ended on 02.07.2020, after which no further extension existed. The appellant's own communications showed acknowledgment that possession was under leave and licence and that vacation was contemplated after auction. The Court applied the scheme of the insolvency law governing liquidation, including the liquidator's duty to protect and preserve assets, sell the assets of the corporate debtor, and approach the Adjudicating Authority for directions. It also held that the residuary jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal could be invoked where the dispute arose in relation to liquidation proceedings, and distinguished rent-control authorities because no subsisting tenancy was established.

Conclusion: The appellant was a licensee in illegal occupation after expiry of the licence period, and the National Company Law Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with the request for vacation of the premises.

Issue (ii): Whether the National Company Law Tribunal was justified in directing lock and seal of the premises despite a status quo order passed by the Court of Small Causes.

Analysis: The status quo order was obtained after the liquidator had already moved the National Company Law Tribunal and was treated as having been secured without full disclosure and without impleading the necessary party. Since the premises formed part of the liquidation estate and the appellant had no surviving tenancy right, the National Company Law Tribunal was entitled to secure the asset in aid of liquidation. The overriding effect of the insolvency law was held to prevail over any inconsistent parallel proceeding.

Conclusion: The National Company Law Tribunal was in directing lock and seal, and the status quo order of the Small Causes Court did not bar that direction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the impugned order was sustained, and the liquidation process was permitted to proceed with control of the premises secured with the liquidator.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a licence over corporate debtor premises has expired and no tenancy is established, disputes concerning vacation and protection of the asset during liquidation fall within the National Company Law Tribunal's jurisdiction, and the insolvency code prevails over inconsistent parallel proceedings.

---