Case: Jabal C.Lashkari  Vs. Official Liquidator (Prasad Mills Ltd.)

first chance/opportunity that the Rent Act contemplates as a legal necessity incumbent on the landlord to afford to the tenant. Admittedly, in the present case, no such notice as contemplated by Section 13 (2) has been issued by the landlord; at least none has been brought to our notice. In such a situation, the readiness and willingness of the tenant to pay the rent, though may have continued for a fairly long time without actual payment, will not deprive the tenant of the protection under the Rent Act. Though the order of the High Court in para 43 of the impugned judgment has been placed before the Court as an order under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act we do not find the said order to be of the kind contemplated by Section 12(3)(b) inasmuch as not only the order does not mention any specific rent which has to be tendered in Court but what is encompassed therein is a direction to the official liquidator to let the State Bank of India know the precise amount that is required to be paid on account of rent and, thereafter, to pay the same to the official liquidator whereafter it has been left open for the lessors to withdraw the said amount from the official liquidator. Such an order by no stretch of reasoning would be one contemplated under Section 12(3)(b). In the aforesaid situation, the finding of the High Court that the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction on the ground of non payment of rent under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act cannot be said to be so inherently infirm so as to require the interference of this Court. 18. This will bring the Court to a consideration of the liability of the official liquidator to a decree of eviction on the ground contemplated under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. As already discussed in a preceding paragraph of the present order, the non obstante clause of Section 13 (1) overrides only the other provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and is also subject to the provisions of Section 15. Section 15 which deals with sub-letting and transfer, though overrides the provisions contained in any other law, is subject to any contract to the contrary. Though in the present case the lease deed (clause 7) is capable of being read as permitting sub-letting and not assignment what has been held in the present case by the High Court, by virtue of the decision of this Court in Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar vs. Rudravva (supra), is that in view of the limited operation of the non obstante clause in Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act, unlike Section 21 of the Karnataka Act, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act [Section 118 (o)] will not become irrelevant to the relationship between the parties in which event assignment may also be permissible notwithstanding the specific content of clause 7 of the lease deed in question. However, we need not dwell on this issue at any length or would also be required to consider the efficacy of the arguments of the learned Additional Solicitor General on the strength of the two Privy Council decisions mentioned above i.e. Hans Raj vs. Bejoy Lal Sel and Ram Kinkar Banerjee vs. Satya Charan Srimani (supra) inasmuch as from Company Application No. 34 of 2004, which deals with the claim of the appellants for eviction of the official liquidator from the leased property, what is clear and evident is that the case of sub-letting of the leased premises on which basis eviction has been prayed for is not sub-letting/assignment by the official liquidator but assignment of the leased premises to Prasad Mills by the original managing agents in whose favour the initial lease was executed by the predecessors of the present owners. The ground of unauthorized and impermissible assignment by the official liquidator on the strength of the notice/advertisement for disposal of the leased land thereby making the said authority liable for eviction is an argument advanced only at the hearing of the appeals before us. That apart the said argument overlooks the fact that the assignment was only sought to be made by the advertisement/notice issued and did not amount to a completed action on the part of the official liquidator so as to attract the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Act dealing with the consequential liability for eviction. Such argument also belies the injunctive/prohibitory relief sought for in the Company Applications, as already noticed, insofar as the contemplated sale/transfer/assignment of the leased property by the official liquidator is concerned. The arguments advanced on the strength of the provisions of Section 19 of the Bombay Rent Act would also stand answered on the above basis. 19. Insofar as liability under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act is concerned what is to be noticed is the requirement of unjustified non-user for a period exceeding 6 months which evidently is not be attracted to the present case in view of the pendency of the liquidation proceedings. That apart, Clause 5 of the lease deed which deals with non-user of the leased land does not contemplate eviction on account of such non-user but merely entitles the lessor to receive rent for the period of such non-user of the land.20. The mere fact that the company has been ordered to be wound up cannot be a ground to direct the official liquidator to handover possession of the land to the owners inasmuch as the company in liquidation continues to maintain its corporate existence until it stands dissolved upon completion of the liquidation proceedings in the manner contemplated by the Companies Act. In the present case it has been repeatedly submitted before this Court by both sides that presently revival of Prasad Mills is a live issue pending before the Gujarat High Court, a fact which cannot be ignored by this Court in deciding the above issue against the appellants. 21. For the aforesaid reasons we

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]17. Section 12 of the Rent Act confers protection on a tenant who is regularly paying or is ready and willing to pay the rent. In the present case while there is no doubt that rent has not been paid, equally, there is no doubt that the secured creditors including the State Bank of India had all along been ready and willing to pay the rent and the reasons for non payment appears to be (para 43 of the impugned order of the High Court) lack of communication by the official liquidator to the SBI of the precise amount of rent due. While there can be no doubt that mere readiness and willingness to pay without actual payment cannot enure to the benefit of the tenant in perpetuity what is required under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 is a notice in writing by the landlord raising a demand of rent and only on the failure of the tenant to comply with such notice within a period of one month that the filing of a suit for recovery of possession is contemplated. The service of notice giving an opportunity to the tenant to pay the unpaid rent is the first chance/opportunity that the Rent Act contemplates as a legal necessity incumbent on the landlord to afford to the tenant. Admittedly, in the present case, no such notice as contemplated by Section 13 (2) has been issued by the landlord; at least none has been brought to our notice. In such a situation, the readiness and willingness of the tenant to pay the rent, though may have continued for a fairly long time without actual payment, will not deprive the tenant of the protection under the Rent Act. Though the order of the High Court in para 43 of the impugned judgment has been placed before the Court as an order under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act we do not find the said order to be of the kind contemplated by Section 12(3)(b) inasmuch as not only the order does not mention any specific rent which has to be tendered in Court but what is encompassed therein is a direction to the official liquidator to let the State Bank of India know the precise amount that is required to be paid on account of rent and, thereafter, to pay the same to the official liquidator whereafter it has been left open for the lessors to withdraw the said amount from the official liquidator. Such an order by no stretch of reasoning would be one contemplated under Section 12(3)(b). In the aforesaid situation, the finding of the High Court that the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction on the ground of non payment of rent under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act cannot be said to be so inherently infirm so as to require the interference of this Court.Insofar as liability under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act is concerned what is to be noticed is the requirement of unjustified non-user for a period exceeding 6 months which evidently is not be attracted to the present case in view of the pendency of the liquidation proceedings. That apart, Clause 5 of the lease deed which deals with non-user of the leased land does not contemplate eviction on account of such non-user but merely entitles the lessor to receive rent for the period of such non-user of the land.20. The mere fact that the company has been ordered to be wound up cannot be a ground to direct the official liquidator to handover possession of the land to the owners inasmuch as the company in liquidation continues to maintain its corporate existence until it stands dissolved upon completion of the liquidation proceedings in the manner contemplated by the Companies Act. In the present case it has been repeatedly submitted before this Court by both sides that presently revival of Prasad Mills is a live issue pending before the Gujarat High Court, a fact which cannot be ignored by this Court in deciding the above issue against the appellants.The other civil appeals, which have been heard analogously, can be divided into two categories. The first is where the order dated 17.10.2008 passed in O.J. Appeal No. 65 of 2006 [Jabal C. Lashkari & Ors. Vs. Official Liquidator & Ors.] impugned in civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 29282-29284 of 2008 has been followed. In the other group are the cases where the said order has been followed and also an additional ground has been cited namely that in view of the order dated 17.07.2006 passed in Company Application No. 250 of 2006 a direction has been issued to handover possession of the leased premises to the State Government; hence the question of putting the property to sale does not arise.23. Though we have affirmed the order dated 17.10.2008 of the Gujarat High Court passed in O.J. Appeal Nos. 65 of 2006, 66 of 2006 and 67 of 2006 and dismissed the civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 29282-29284 of 2008 [Jabal C. Lashkari & Ors. Vs. Official Liquidator & Ors.], our decision to affirm the said judgment of the High Court is based on a consideration of the specific clauses in the lease deed between the parties to the case. What would be the effect of the principles of law underlying the present order vis-a-vis the specific clauses of the lease deed between the parties in the other cases is a question that has to be considered by the High Court in each of the cases. That apart whether the order dated 17.07.2006 passed in Company Application No. 250 of 2006 has attained finality in law and forecloses the question raised and further whether constructions have been raised on such land by the State Government for the benefit of the general public, as has been submitted to dissuade us from interfering with the order of the High Court, are questions that would require a full and complete consideration by the High Court on the materials available.