TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (8) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mt. Sabita V. Adapa, shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property being a shop Nos. 8/9, on the ground floor of the building formerly known as ' Jagmohan Building No. 2 ' or as ' Ayaz Mansion' and now styled as 'Ram Kutir' situated as Station Road, Andheri, Bombay-400058, to the liquidator on or before February 28, 1983, who shall forthwith hand over possession on March 1, 1983, to the appellants, after taking a statement from the appellants that they have deposited the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in this court as herein indicated. On respondent No. 2 handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the afore-mentioned shops to the liquidator by or before February 28, 1983, the liquidator shall forthwith refund to her the security deposit of Rs. 28,800 deposited by the second respondent with the liquidator. Respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to remove all furniture and fixtures placed by her in the suit shop without causing damage to the property. The amount of Rs. 1,50,000 to be deposited by the appellants in this court will, with the consent of the appellants, be disbursed according to the direction to be given by this court to the needy and the deserving creditors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of which the premises involved in this appeal formed part. Appellants took out judge's summons praying for a direction to the liquidator to terminate the caretaker's agreement entered into with the second respondent under the directions of the court, and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the appellants. There were other prayers in the judge's summons with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The learned company judge repelled the contention of the appellants that the so-called caretakers' agreement entered into by the liquidator with the second respondents was in contravention of the various provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1948, as amended in 1973 ("Rent Act") for short and held that in substance and in form it was a caretaker's agreement which was permissible. Accordingly, the learned judge rejected the judge's summons in respect of both the prayers. Appellants preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench held that the appellants were not entitled to the notice in respect of the report submitted by the liquidator for directions in respect of the premises and further o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter it will be, and that they will make a profit from it. Reliance was also placed on Panchmahals Steel Ltd. v. Universal Steel Traders [1976] 46 Comp. Cas. 706, 722 (Guj.), wherein it was held that, amongst others, "the liquidator with the sanction of the court has the power to carry on the business of the company so far as may be necessary for the beneficial winding up of the company. It is true that the liquidator cannot carry on business for any other purpose except the purpose for which the power is conferred upon him, namely, for the beneficial winding up of the company. He cannot carry on any business on the ground that it would be beneficial to the creditors or the contributors. The jurisdictional fact which must be ascertained and established for the exercise of the power by the liquidator to carry on business of a company, is that carrying on of the business of the company is necessary for the beneficial winding-up of the company." However, the language of the section being unambiguous and clear, one does not need the assistance of precedents to come to a conclusion that the liquidator with the sanction of the court can carry on the business of the company only to the ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. The company was a tenant or a lessee of the premises of which the appellants are the landlords. The date of the commencement of the lease is not made available to us, but it is also not claimed on behalf of the liquidator that there was a lease of long duration. If so, the company was a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. The statutory tenancy confers the right to be in possession but if the tenant does not any more require the use of the premises, the provisions of the Rent Act, and especially sections 13 and 15, completely prohibit giving the possession of the premises on licence or on sub-lease. The learned company judge, therefore, spelt out a third way of parting with the possession by the liquidator, namely, that he may give the premises to the second respondent under a caretaker's agreement. This caretaker's agreement appears to us to be an euphemism for collecting compensation which is nothing else but the charge for use and occupation of the premises exclusively by the second respondent. Whether it is sub-lease or licence does not call for decision. For the purpose of the present proceedings it is enough for us to say t....