https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764491 NCLAT held that NCLT lacks jurisdiction to order eviction of tenants whose rights are protected under Maharashtra Rent Control Act during insolvency proceedings. The case involved a monthly tenant whose predecessor obtained civil court decree establishing tenancy rights. When landlord underwent insolvency resolution, NCLT erroneously ordered eviction treating it as lease termination. NCLAT distinguished between lease and tenancy, noting tenancy continues until changed by contract or law operation. Since eviction suit was pending when CIRP commenced and tenancy remained protected under Rent Control Act, IBC provisions could not override statutory tenant protection. NCLAT ruled NCLT jurisdiction limited to matters directly related to insolvency resolution process. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jan 2025 08:46:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764491 NCLAT held that NCLT lacks jurisdiction to order eviction of tenants whose rights are protected under Maharashtra Rent Control Act during insolvency proceedings. The case involved a monthly tenant whose predecessor obtained civil court decree establishing tenancy rights. When landlord underwent insolvency resolution, NCLT erroneously ordered eviction treating it as lease termination. NCLAT distinguished between lease and tenancy, noting tenancy continues until changed by contract or law operation. Since eviction suit was pending when CIRP commenced and tenancy remained protected under Rent Control Act, IBC provisions could not override statutory tenant protection. NCLAT ruled NCLT jurisdiction limited to matters directly related to insolvency resolution process. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764491