A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) INITIALLY on 15-2-1991 a report of the Official Liquidator was considered wherein it was stated that three tenants have been inducted unauthorisedly by the employees of the Official Liquidator. A direction was given to issue notice to them treating them as trespassers. There was an interlocutory application No. 1360 of 1984 about the induction of one Nagar in one of the buildings under liquidation. Vide proceedings dated 5-4-1991 it was directed that list of all the tenants and property should be filed in the Court along with the persons in possession of the property and the nature of their possession along with the fact whether any permission has been sought from the Court. A direction was given to the Official Liquidator to furnish the list and the list has been furnished. Notices were issued to the tenants. ( 2 ) THE tenants appeared through Shri Panjwani and Shri V. K. Jain, Advocates. On 25-10-1991 Shri Panjwani appeared on behalf of Mukeshkumar Rochaldas Shri Gangrade on behalf of Komal Jain, Shri S. S. Samvatsar for Dayal and Dayal, Inder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Satyanarayan and Premchand. Shri Samwatsar filed reply on their behalf. Shri Bagadiya, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Mandrlal Nagar. Time was given to the remaining tenants to file reply. ( 3 ) THE report of the Official Liquidator was that the occupation is unauthorised. Therefore, the copy of the report was also given to the tenants. The report was filed as directed earlier by the Court by the O. L. on 21-2-1992, which was directed to be kept in safe custody. All the tenants who were noticed why action should not be taken against them under S. 536 of the Companies Act have filed reply. Arguments have been heard. ( 4 ) NOW from the report of the Official Liquidator given in compliance to the order of this Court, it appears that there are many tenants against whom action has to be initiated. The report be kept with the file in a sealed cover as before and action may be initiated after asking the parties to make submissions in this behalf. This matter may be taken up on the next date of hearing. ( 5 ) AS regards the induction of certain tenants by the then Official Liquidator, the matter has been heard at length. This matter may be taken up on the next date of hearing. ( 5 ) AS regards the induction of certain tenants by the then Official Liquidator, the matter has been heard at length. The Official Liquidator in his report dated 26-4-1991 in, compliance of the order of this Court has submitted the details of the tenants who have been inducted by the then Official Liquidator. First of all let us take I. A. No. 1360 of 1984 wherein the Court had directed, vide order of this Court that suit for eviction be instituted against Smt. Saryu Devi for her ejectment from the premises under the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. Non-applicants Nos. 3 and 4 were issued show cause notices. It was further directed that in the meanwhile the non-applicants shall not enter the premises to carry out their business there. Non-applicant No. 4 Madanlal Chhaganlal stated in reply that Nagar has been a partner of their partnership firm from 195 9/10/1983. Therefore, they said that there was no occasion for issuing any restraint order against non-applicant No. 4 and the order may be vacated. ( 6 ) NON-APPLICANT No. 3 Nagar in his reply dated 19-4-1984 stated that the order dated 30-3-1984 has been served on them on 16-4-1984 and in the meanwhile the firm has commenced its business in the premises since November 1983 under a deed of partnership dated 2-11-1983, but this I. A. remained pending for long. However, in pursuance of the order dated 30-3-1984 a suit against Smt. Saryu Devi Baheti for ejectment has already been filed in the District Court in 1984. But no substantial progress has been made in that suit. This application pertaining to ejectment suit has to be decided after hearing the parties concerned. Therefore, its decision at this moment is not necessary. However, to understand the chronology of the events this fact had been noticed by the Court. ( 7 ) WHEN the suit was pending in the Court, on 18-11-1986 the Official Liquidator got a rent deed executed from Manoharlal Nagar inducting him as a tenant in the premises with effect from 11-11-1986 in house No. 497 at M. G. Road owned by M/s. N. B. and Sons Pvt. Ltd. The rent fixed by the rent deed is Rs. 325/-per month. 325/-per month. But in that case the Official Liquidator Shri L. N. Jaiswal has not sought the permission of the Court and has signed the rent deed along with the seal of the Official Liquidator and the rent was being received by the Office of the Official Liquidator till December 1990 at the rate of Rs. 325/ -. ( 8 ) AT house No. 498 M/s. Dayal and Dayal have been inducted as tenants from June 1986 on a rent of Rs. 400/- per month. The owners have been issued receipts on 8-10-1986 in token of rent from June 198 6/12/1986. Similarly Indra Kumar Ramesh Kumar at 498, M. G. Road, Indore has been inducted as tenants from November 1986 on a monthly rent of R. 300/ -. This tenancy was also given by Shri Jaiswal the then Official Liquidator and on 31-10-1986 a receipt for Rs. 300/- has been issued by him. Komal Jain, who has been inducted as tenant at house No. 50, Bajaj Khana admitted that he has paid the rent till August 1990. Shri Jain was also sent a letter by the Official Liquidator to clarify on that basis the possession is with him, but he did not send any reply to the Official Liquidator. He is inducted since December 1982 as tenant. ( 9 ) RATANLAL Poonamchand Jain has been inducted as a tenant in January 1987 on a rent of Rs. 50/- per month at 6, Dhan Gali, Indore. He was also sent a notice by the Official Liquidator, but he has not sent any reply. In addition to this notices were also sent to Premchand, Satyanarayan Mate, Mukesh Kumar Rochaldas. ( 10 ) ). On perusing the record I find that M/s. Dayal and Dayal has given the reply to the notice issued by this Court, stating that the Official Liquidator has signed the lease deed and put his seal on the lease deed. He is paying the rent regularly to the Official Liquidator. The amount is credited in the account books and periodical returns and audit reports are filed before the Court. Everyone is aware of the fact that the petitioners are the tenants. The tenants being laymen and stranger to the proceedings they were under an impression that the Official Liquidator has leased out the premises after completing all the necessary formalities. The amount is credited in the account books and periodical returns and audit reports are filed before the Court. Everyone is aware of the fact that the petitioners are the tenants. The tenants being laymen and stranger to the proceedings they were under an impression that the Official Liquidator has leased out the premises after completing all the necessary formalities. They were under the impression that the O. L. is fully authorised to lease the premises. The tenant cannot be punished for any illegal action taken on the basis of the wrong act of the Official Liquidator. Annexures have been filed to support the contention. It has also been stated that the said action is covered under S. 457 (2) (1) of the Companies Act. In the alternative it has been stated that technical defect can be rectified because the lease is not ab initio void. ( 11 ) INDRA Kumar, tenant has also made similar reply and has added that Gurmukh Das had sold the entire furniture to the present tenant and thereupon a joint application by the present applicant and Gurmukhdas was filed. Annexure-2 has been filed. The Official Liquidator whereupon sought the consent of the Directors of the Company, the petitioner and the creditors. None of them raised any objection for transferring the lease in favour of the answering tenant. A copy of the proceedings duly signed by the O. L. is filed as Annexure-4. A copy of the notice dated 19-12-1990 issued by the present Official Liquidator admitting his right to transfer the lease is filed as Annexure-5. ( 12 ) MUKESH Kumar Roshanlal has also filed a similar reply. ( 13 ) SATYANARAYAN Mate has filed the reply and states that Gyarsi Bai was the original tenant of the company and he is the legal representative of Gyarsi Bai. He has also raised similar pleas as raised by the other tenants. ( 14 ) ). Premchand is a tenant in house No. 44. According to him he is the legal representative of one Shreelal son of Madanlal. He has also raised the same pleas as raised by the other tenants. ( 15 ) MANOHARLAL Nagar in his reply has stated that the noticee is a tenant in the shop in house No. 497 since 18-11-86. A rent note was executed in favour of the notice on 18-11-86 a copy of which is filed as Annexure-1. He has also raised the same pleas as raised by the other tenants. ( 15 ) MANOHARLAL Nagar in his reply has stated that the noticee is a tenant in the shop in house No. 497 since 18-11-86. A rent note was executed in favour of the notice on 18-11-86 a copy of which is filed as Annexure-1. The noticee was, in possession of the premises prior to the execution of the rent deed. He is regularly paying the rent to the Official Liquidator and the receipts are issued by the O. L. Therefore, he cannot be said to be in unauthorised occupation. All the parties in the Court are aware of this fact. It has also been stated that the sanction of the Court is not necessary to be obtained before the O. L. gives the property on lease. ( 16 ) THE tenants were represented by their counsel and they were heard at length. The counsel for the petitioner was also heard in details and the Official Liquidator Shri S. C. Gupta was also heard. ( 17 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the tenants is that seeking the permission by the Official Liquidator from the Court before inducting a tenant for giving a lease is a matter between the Official Liquidator and the Court. However, the Official Liquidator is free to give a lease and that lease executed by the O. L. is perfectly valid. The learned counsel also tried to argue that the old Companies Act had Ss. 179, 180 and 183. In its place the new Ss. 451 to 457 have been added by amendment. By the new amendment the powers of the Court and the Official Liquidator have been bifurcated and the Act now does not prohibit the O. L. to lease the property without the permission of the Court. In any case there is no fault of the tenants and, therefore, they cannot be penalised for no fault of theirs. ( 18 ) SHRI Garg, learned counsel on the other hand has argued that the Official Liquidator is only a Manager managing the property and the property is in the custody of the Court and, therefore, the Official Liquidator is under a duty to obtain sanction from the Court before leasing out the property. It has also been argued that amount can be taken from the tenants by way of security. It has also been argued that amount can be taken from the tenants by way of security. Both the learned counsel have cited various Supreme Court authorities in favour of their respective contentions. ( 19 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the provisions of S. 457 of the Companies Act wherein the powers of the Official Liquidator are defined. Section 457 (1) enumerates the powers of the Official Liquidator to be exercised by him with the sanction of the Court, which includes the institution and defending of suits, carrying on the business of the Company, to sell immovable and movable property, actionable claims of the property by public auction or private contract, with power to transfer the whole thereof or any parcels to raise on the security of assets of the company any money requisite and to do all such things as may be necessary for winding up the affairs of the company and distributing its assets. As such all the aforesaid powers enumerated in the sub-sec. (1) can be exercised by the O. L. with the sanction of the Court. ( 20 ) NOW in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 457 the powers to the Official Liquidator have been given wherein the words 'with the sanction of the Court' have been omitted. By this sub-section the O. L. is empowered to do all acts and to execute, in the name and on behalf of the company, all deeds, receipts and other documents, inspect the record to prove, rank and claim in the insolvency of any contributory, to draw, accept, make and endorse any bill of exchange, hundi, or promissory note and matters pertaining to letters of administration. Then sub-section (3) speaks of the exercise by the Liquidator of the powers conferred by this section shall be with the control of the Court and any creditor or contributory may apply to the Court with respect to the exercise or proposed exercise of any of the powers conferred by this section. ( 21 ) AS such it is manifest that the power to lease out the property is not specifically mentioned in either sub-sec. (1) or sub-section (2 ). Therefore, when specifically a power is not given to the Official Liquidator, then the provisions of sub-sec. ( 21 ) AS such it is manifest that the power to lease out the property is not specifically mentioned in either sub-sec. (1) or sub-section (2 ). Therefore, when specifically a power is not given to the Official Liquidator, then the provisions of sub-sec. (3) to S. 457 have to be looked into which provides for the overall control of the Court on the acts of the O. L. Therefore, it is manifest that the O. L. while leasing out the property to the tenants has to seek the permission of the Court because it is the Court in whose custody the property after the liquidation is kept and the O. L. exercises his duties according to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, I hold that the induction of the tenants by the O. L. was not within his powers, and therefore the agreements arrived at between the tenants and the O. L. are without jurisdiction and, therefore, they are illegal. ( 22 ) THIS leads us to another question whether the tenants should be ousted from the premises on this ground. After perusing the replies and considering the factual aspect of the matter, I find that the tenants were inducted in the premises by the then Official Liquidator long back and since then they were paying the rent and the rent was deposited in the account of the company without any objection from any one except in the case of Manoharlal and that too prior to the execution of the lease deed of 1986 and in respect of transfer of tenancy that matter is with the Civil Court. The accounts have been audited and reports have been submitted to the Court. Therefore, I do not deem it proper to oust the tenants from the tenancy treating them as trespassers. Therefore, the best course open would be that the tenants be asked to execute fresh lease deeds with the Official Liquidator. But looking to the amount of rent which the O. L. has fixed even for the years 1986 or earlier is too low in view of the localities and the then existing rates on which the properties were leased. ( 23 ) IT is also true that some uniform policy has to be adopted. But looking to the amount of rent which the O. L. has fixed even for the years 1986 or earlier is too low in view of the localities and the then existing rates on which the properties were leased. ( 23 ) IT is also true that some uniform policy has to be adopted. Therefore, it is directed that if the noticee's-tenants who have been inducted as tenants by the Official Liquidator without the sanction of the Court agree to, enter into fresh lease deeds with the O. L. for the company, within a period of 15 days from the date of the notice to be sent by the Official Liquidator, the O. L. shall enter into fresh lease deeds with those tenants. However, the rent in respect of the properties leased on M. G. Road, shall be five times of the existing rent and for the properties situated in other areas, it shall be four times of the existing rent. If the tenant who have been inducted by the O. L. without the sanction of the Court agree to execute the agreement, then they shall continue to be tenants and those persons who do not execute the agreements within 15 days of the receipt of the notice from the O. L. to be issued by, the Official Liquidator as expeditiously as possible, proceedings for their summary ejectment shall be initiated against them. This lenient view in favour of the tenants is being taken in view of the fact that the tenants do not know whether the Official Liquidator has obtained the sanction of the Court or not, but it is manifest that the Official Liquidator has exercised the jurisdiction which does not vest in him and while inducting the tenants has not cared for the interest of the company by fixing meagre amounts of rent. The Department may take suitable action against the then Official Liquidator whosoever he may be. For the purpose of notices, the matter is disposed of finally as per the aforesaid directions. ( 24 ) IT is further directed that in case of other tenants also, the lease of which has been given by the Official Liquidator, the matter may be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing and after hearing the parties the further action shall be decided. The list be kept in the sealed cover and not separately. Order accordingly. The list be kept in the sealed cover and not separately. Order accordingly. .