https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198152 A claim to sub-tenancy in disclaimed company property failed because prior written consent of the lessor had to relate specifically to the particular sub-letting, and a general or implied permission was insufficient. The materials did not show any specific written consent for the alleged sub-tenancy, nor proof of notice of sub-letting under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant also failed to establish possession or that it was a subsidiary of the company in liquidation within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. No enforceable interest in the disclaimed property was shown, so the vesting order was refused and the landlord's disclaimer remained effective. en-us Wed, 31 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:26:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198152 A claim to sub-tenancy in disclaimed company property failed because prior written consent of the lessor had to relate specifically to the particular sub-letting, and a general or implied permission was insufficient. The materials did not show any specific written consent for the alleged sub-tenancy, nor proof of notice of sub-letting under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant also failed to establish possession or that it was a subsidiary of the company in liquidation within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. No enforceable interest in the disclaimed property was shown, so the vesting order was refused and the landlord's disclaimer remained effective. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 31 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198152