2015 (3) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the property under the respondent. The tenancy was created by a registered lease deed dated 04.04.2012. The possession of the premises was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner on 04.04.2012 for the purpose of fitment etc. and the monthly rent was to commence w.e.f. 01.06.2012. 3. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- as interest free security deposit and Rs. 56,00,000/- as advance rental being rental @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per month for six months. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the property was mortgaged with Karur Vysya Bank and the petitioner was not informed of the same by the respondent. As per the petitioner, the petitioner received a letter dated 18.06.2012 from the said bank contending that the respondent h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xpiry of the said 36 months. 10. It is contended by the Respondent that the petitioner violated the terms of the lease deed and having no intention to pay the monthly rent created a false plea of the action by the bank. 11. It is contended by the respondent, that the respondent had assured the petitioner that the possession of the premises would not be disturbed. It is submitted that in fact the possession of the petitioner was neither disturbed by the respondent nor by the bank and the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the property without any hindrance. 12. It is further contended that the petitioner had not vacated the premises in November 2012 but the possession of the premises was handed over in November 2013. 13. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncy created after such notice would be null and void. It is contended that since the tenancy was null and void, the same was not binding on the petitioner and the petitioner was not liable to pay any rent for the period when the premises was occupied. 17. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable as Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act is a protection to the bank and for all actions taken by the bank. The said judgment protects the interest of the bank and does not permit the subsequent transferee to raise a defence contrary to the rights of the bank. 18. Once the petitioner/tenant had come into the possession of the property, the petitioner/tenant cannot refuse the payment of rent/mesne profits for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... examination and parties may be required to lead oral and other evidence in support of their respective contentions. 21. The proceedings of winding up are summary proceedings under Sections 433-434 of the Companies Act. The court in a petition seeking winding up of a company would not go into disputed questions of fact which may require the parties to lead evidence. 22. In my view, since the petition involves the disputed questions of fact, the parties would be required to settle the same through the process of a civil forum. 23. There is a dispute whether the Petitioner is liable to pay any rental or pay rental till November 2012 or till November 2013 or for the 36 month lock in period. The position that emerges is that the security dep....