Landlord priority in winding up cannot override the Companies Act's express priority scheme or arise from custodia legis.

In winding up, a landlord's arrears claim does not gain priority by importing the landlord-priority rule from the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act through section 229 of the Indian Companies Act when section 230 already provides a specific priority scheme for company claims. The Companies Act's express for priority matters prevails, so insolvency rules cannot be used to displace or alter that statutory arrangement. A claim based on custodia legis also fails, because custody by law does not change the relative rights of competing claimants or create a landlord's priority. The landlord's priority claim was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a winding up, the landlord's claim for arrears of rent could obtain priority by importing the landlord-priority rule from the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act through section 229 of the Indian Companies Act, or on the ground that the premises had come into custodia legis.

Analysis: Section 229 operates subject to the specific scheme of section 230 of the Indian Companies Act, which itself makes express provision for priority claims, including revenue, wages, and landlord-related claims. Where the Companies Act has made special provision on a matter, the insolvency rule is not to be imported so as to displace or alter that statutory arrangement. The claim based on custodia legis also fails, because custody by law does not alter the relative rights of competing claimants or confer a landlord's priority.

Conclusion: The landlord was not entitled to the claimed priority and the application failed.

---