Mr. G. C. Mital. C. J. ( 1 ) IT is not disputed that the appellant companytook possession of the premises in dispute, which is an industrial premises,from Smt. Sona Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi on licence, monthly licence feebeingrs. l6. 500. 00. The appellant had not paid the licence fee with effectfrom 12/12/1989. On account of arrears, which amounted to debt,the lessors filed a company petition for winding up of the appellant company. Since in spite of opportunities, granted by the learned Company Judge, theappellant did not pay the amount, the learned Company Judge ordered thecitation of the winding up petition and provisional liquidator was appointed. Against this order of the Company Judge, this appeal has been directed. ( 2 ) WHILE admitting the company appeal, this Court had ordered thatthe appellant should deposit sums of Rs. 44. 000. 00 and Rs. 40. 000. 00 as acondition precedent for granting stay of the order of the learned Companyjudge. The appellant complied with that order and directions. ( 3 ) NOW it has been pointed out by the lessors that the appellant is inhuge arrears of over Rs. 4,00,000. 00 even after adjusting the amount of thesecurity given by the appellant to the lessors and the amount deposited underthe orders of this Court. ( 4 ) THE interest of justice demands that the lessee or whosoever tookpossession from Smt. Sona Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi, must deposit thearrears of licence fee. at least in this Court, if there is some dispute pendingabout the title of the property. Accordingly, we direct the appellant todeposit with the Registrar of this Court, the entire amount towards the arrearof licence fee, to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 16,500. 00 per month and byadjusting the amount already paid and the security amount lying with thetwo ladies. Counsel for the appellant states that probably the arrear uptomay, 1989 has been paid. This has been disputed by Counsel for the lessors. The matter of counting should be fairly considered by the parties. Thearrears should be paid in two equal monthly instalments with the Registrarof this Court. The first instalment being payable on or before 1 1/11/1991. This will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in this litigation or any other litigation pending betweenthem. The appellant is also directed to keep on deposit the licence fee eachmonth. Thearrears should be paid in two equal monthly instalments with the Registrarof this Court. The first instalment being payable on or before 1 1/11/1991. This will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in this litigation or any other litigation pending betweenthem. The appellant is also directed to keep on deposit the licence fee eachmonth. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the appellant states that in view of the aforesaidorder, nhing survives in the appeal. ( 6 ) SINCE the appellant has paid the entire arrears due to which thecompany petition was moved, we set aside the order of the learned Companyjudge ordering citation of the winding up petition and allow the appeal. ( 7 ) IN case this order is violated, it will be open to the two ladies tofile a petition for contempt and also move the Company Judge for appropriate orders. The two ladies are at liberty to apply to the Company Judgefor withdrawal of the amount, which matter shall be decided after notice tothe appellant and M/s. Star Traders. ( 8 ) IT is clarified that the two ladies can withdraw the amount ofrs. 44. 000. 00, Rs. 40. 000. 00 and Rs. 50,000. 00 i. e. Rs. 1,34,000. 00 pursuant to theorder dated 17/07/1989, subject to furnishing security to the satisfactionof the Registrar. ( 9 ) CRL. M. 138 and 139191on the peculiar facts of this case, we are not inclined to procedurethe two ladies. The applications are disposed of accordingly. ( 10 ) CMS. 1907 and 1979191after hearing Counsel for the parties, we make correction in theopening paragraph of our order dated 9/10/1991 by substituting 1/12/1988 instead of 12/12/1989, for the reasons given in theapplication, but without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to agitate thismatter before the Company Judge as to from which date the appellant hasnot paid the licence fee. ( 11 ) ANOTHER point raised in the application is that there was anagreement that after the lapse of 35 months, the licence fee has to be enhanced by 30 per cent. This matter was not agitated before the Company Judgebecause 35 months had not lapsed, but lapsed later on. That is why at thattime no prayer was made and probably rightly because the prayer had to bemade firstly before the Company Judge. This matter was not agitated before the Company Judgebecause 35 months had not lapsed, but lapsed later on. That is why at thattime no prayer was made and probably rightly because the prayer had to bemade firstly before the Company Judge. Accordingly, in case there is anagreement to the effect of increase after the lapse of 35 months, we giveliberty to the respondents to make prayer before the Company Judge by anapplication to seek enhancement of the licence fee in terms of the agreement. Before deciding the application for enhancement, the appellant would beheard by the Company Judge and the pleas raised by the appellant will beconsidered and decided on merits. ( 12 ) WITH this order and direction, the application stands disposed of.