Recovery of possession in insolvency can proceed before the Adjudicating Authority when corporate debtor assets are unlawfully occupied.

Where premises belong to the corporate debtor and are in unauthorised occupation, the Resolution Professional may seek recovery of possession before the Adjudicating Authority as part of the duty to control, preserve and protect the debtor's assets. Such relief has a direct nexus with the insolvency process and need not wait for a separate civil suit. A claimant must, however, establish a legally enforceable tenancy, leasehold right, or licence through proper pleadings and evidence; a mere permission to store goods is insufficient. An interim civil court order will not bar insolvency adjudication where it preserves eviction in accordance with due process of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application filed by the Resolution Professional seeking eviction of the Appellant from the Corporate Debtor's premises was maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority; (ii) Whether the Appellant proved any tenancy, leasehold right, or licence in respect of the premises; (iii) Whether the interim order of the City Civil Court precluded the Adjudicating Authority from passing the impugned eviction order.

Issue (i): Whether the application filed by the Resolution Professional seeking eviction of the Appellant from the Corporate Debtor's premises was maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis: The Resolution Professional is duty-bound to take control, custody, preserve, and protect the assets of the corporate debtor. Where the premises admittedly belong to the corporate debtor and are in the occupation of a third party claimed to be unlawful, the application for recovery of possession has a direct nexus with the insolvency process. The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction under the Code extends to such relief, and the need to avoid delay in the insolvency process supports adjudication before that forum rather than by a separate civil suit.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable and the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to entertain it.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellant proved any tenancy, leasehold right, or licence in respect of the premises.

Analysis: The only material relied upon was a letter permitting the Appellant to stock marble at the premises. There was no written lease, no proof of rent, no rent receipts, and no adequate pleading or evidence showing creation of an oral tenancy or any subsisting licence or leasehold right. The Appellant's own pleadings indicated permission to occupy only for business convenience, and the record did not establish any legally enforceable interest in the immovable property.

Conclusion: No tenancy, leasehold right, or licence was proved, and the Appellant was in unauthorised occupation.

Issue (iii): Whether the interim order of the City Civil Court precluded the Adjudicating Authority from passing the impugned eviction order.

Analysis: The interim order protected possession only until the next date and expressly preserved eviction in accordance with due process of law. Proceedings concerning possession of the corporate debtor's asset fell within the Adjudicating Authority's domain under the Code, and the civil court could not bar such adjudication. The interim order therefore did not obstruct the impugned directions.

Conclusion: The City Civil Court's interim order did not bar the Adjudicating Authority from passing the eviction order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds, and the direction to vacate the premises was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where premises owned by the corporate debtor are in unauthorised occupation, the Resolution Professional may seek recovery of possession before the Adjudicating Authority as part of the duty to preserve and protect the corporate debtor's assets, and a civil court's interim protection does not override that jurisdiction when relief is sought in accordance with due process of law.

---