Liquidation and expired lease: possession can be directed to the liquidator, while a pari passu charge holder may be excluded from impleadment.

In liquidation proceedings, the adjudicating forum may direct an occupant to vacate corporate debtor premises where the registered lease has expired by efflux of time and no lawful extension exists; the liquidator was therefore entitled to seek possession and incidental rent arrears for completion of liquidation. A third party bank holding only a pari passu charge over the superstructures, with the asset already forming part of the liquidation estate, was not a necessary or proper party because its presence was not indispensable to decide eviction from the land. The impugned orders were upheld in substance and the appellant was required to hand over possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bank was a necessary and proper party entitled to be impleaded in the appeal. (ii) Whether the liquidator was entitled to seek and obtain an order directing the appellant to vacate and hand over the premises after expiry of the lease.

Issue (i): Whether the bank was a necessary and proper party entitled to be impleaded in the appeal.

Analysis: The bank's own sanction letter and Form D showed only a pari passu charge over the superstructures and not an exclusive charge. The secured asset had already been relinquished to the liquidation estate, and the bank was already a stakeholder in the liquidation process. The controversy in the main appeal concerned eviction of the appellant from the corporate debtor's land, and the bank's presence was not shown to be indispensable for an effective adjudication.

Conclusion: The bank was not a necessary or proper party, and impleadment was rightly refused.

Issue (ii): Whether the liquidator was entitled to seek and obtain an order directing the appellant to vacate and hand over the premises after expiry of the lease.

Analysis: The liquidation regime vested the liquidator with control over the corporate debtor's assets and liquidation estate, and the adjudicating authority could entertain matters having a direct nexus with insolvency and liquidation. The unregistered arrangement could not create a leasehold right for a term beyond what the law permits, and the registered lease deed had expired by efflux of time without renewal or extension. Once the lease ended, the appellant's possession was not lawful, and the liquidator was entitled to seek possession and incidental rent arrears in aid of liquidation.

Conclusion: The eviction direction was sustainable, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were upheld in substance, the request for impleadment was rejected, and the appellant was required to vacate and hand over the subject property to facilitate completion of the liquidation process.

Ratio Decidendi: In liquidation proceedings, the adjudicating forum may direct delivery of possession of a corporate debtor's asset when the occupant's lease has expired and possession is no longer lawful, and a third party with only a pari passu charge is not a necessary or proper party for such determination.

---