Vikramajit Sen ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the Defendant under Section 442 of the Companies Act for the stay of proceedings. It is predicated on the fact that a winding up petition had been admitted and citation has also been issued. The winding up petition, however, was filed on 30/01/1997. Even if this contention of the Defendant was otherwise well-founded it ought to have approached the Court with expedition, and certainly within a period of three years of the relevant event. This has not been done and accordingly the application can be dismissed on this short point. However, my attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in The Official Liquidator v. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd. , AIR 1977 SC 740 , in which it has beenobserved that the passing of orders staying proceedings should not be carried out in a mechanical manner. The Apex Court specifically enjoined that if it appears to the Court that the application had been filed with the intention of the delaying the proceedings, it should not be permitted. Learned counsel has also relied on Basumati Mahajan v. Foremost Industries India Ltd. , 1995 (34) DRJ 732 where, following the previous decision including Smt. Nirrnala R. Bafna/kershi Shivax Camkatta and Others v. Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another/official Liquidator and Others, AIR 1993 SC 1380 , Hon ble Justice K. Ramamoorthy had held that Sections 442 and 446 would not be attracted where the tenancy rights of a company involved in liquidation were concerned. He has also relied on Hansa Industries P\ t. Ltd. and Ors. v. Kidarsons Industries P. Ltd. and Ors. , 1998 III AD (Delhi) 27, to the effect that since sub- letting is not permissible, even in view of the Rent Control legislation, tenancy rights would not be assets of a company which required protection even in the currency of the winding up proceedings. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff had submitted that where, as in the present case, no statutory protection was available to the company viz- a-viz the tenancy, there would be no question of the tenancy constituting an asset of the company. ( 2 ) FOR all these reasons I am satisfied that the application is without merit and is dismissed. ( 3 ) THERE shall be no orders as to costs. ( 2 ) FOR all these reasons I am satisfied that the application is without merit and is dismissed. ( 3 ) THERE shall be no orders as to costs. Suit No. 121811993 Renotify on 21/11/2000 in the category of short-matters.