TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the earlier dismissal of a similar application barred the present claim by res judicata or constructive res judicata; (ii) whether the company in liquidation could continue in possession only as a statutory tenant and whether such tenancy rights were transferable or saleable; (iii) whether the Official Liquidator was required to retain possession of the land for winding up and when possession could be handed over to the claimant.
Issue (i): Whether the earlier dismissal of a similar application barred the present claim by res judicata or constructive res judicata.
Analysis: The earlier application had not been decided on merits of the present relief but was declined as being outside the scope of the review or earlier proceedings. A refusal to examine the relief on that ground did not amount to an adjudication barring a fresh application for appropriate relief.
Conclusion: The present application was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata.
Issue (ii): Whether the company in liquidation could continue in possession only as a statutory tenant and whether such tenancy rights were transferable or saleable.
Analysis: The lease had expired, but the company remained in occupation and therefore its status was that of a statutory tenant under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Under Sections 12 and 13 of that Act, possession could continue only so long as rent and other statutory obligations were complied with. However, Section 15 barred sub-letting, assignment, or transfer of the tenancy interest unless permitted by applicable governmental notification. On the facts, the claimed transfer did not fall within the permitted categories, and the tenancy interest was not a saleable asset of the company in liquidation.
Conclusion: The company could continue only as a statutory tenant, but its tenancy rights were not transferable or saleable.
Issue (iii): Whether the Official Liquidator was required to retain possession of the land for winding up and when possession could be handed over to the claimant.
Analysis: The Official Liquidator could retain the property only so long as required for winding up and sale of the superstructure. Since the land itself was not a saleable asset of the company and continued retention was causing avoidable expenditure, possession of the land was to be surrendered after sale and removal of the superstructure, subject to the stipulated procedure and safeguarding of objections by any person claiming title.
Conclusion: The Official Liquidator was required to continue possession only until the superstructure was sold and then hand over the land to the claimant.
Final Conclusion: The claimant succeeded to the limited extent of securing a direction for surrender of the land after disposal of the superstructure, while the company in liquidation was held to have no transferable or saleable tenancy interest in the property.
Ratio Decidendi: A company in liquidation occupying premises as a statutory tenant after expiry of a lease may retain possession only subject to the Rent Act, but its tenancy interest cannot be treated as a saleable asset where transfer is barred by statute and no permitted exception applies.
TaxTMI 
