Cancelled leasehold assets cannot enter CIRP estate where holding over under property law is not established.

A cancelled leasehold plot could not be treated as an asset of the corporate debtor for inclusion in the resolution plan because the lease had ended before commencement of CIRP. The corporate debtor failed to show restoration of the lease, post-cancellation payment of rent or instalments, or any express or implied assent by the lessor to continued possession. Mere physical possession and a later request for restoration were insufficient to revive the cancelled lease or establish holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On those facts, the statutory conditions for tenancy by holding over were not satisfied, and the plot was rightly excluded from the insolvency estate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancelled plot could be treated as an asset of the corporate debtor and included in the resolution plan, and whether the corporate debtor could claim the benefit of holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The lease of the plot had been cancelled by the development authority in 2015, well before commencement of the CIRP. The corporate debtor did not establish any restoration of the lease, payment of rent or instalments after cancellation, or any express or implied assent by the lessor to its continued possession. Mere continued physical possession and a later request for restoration did not revive the cancelled lease or create a fresh tenancy. On these facts, the statutory conditions for holding over were not satisfied. Since the lease had already come to an end before the insolvency process began, the plot could not form part of the corporate debtor's assets or its resolution plan.

Conclusion: The plot was rightly excluded from the assets of the corporate debtor, and the plea of tenancy by holding over failed.

---