Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1635 (RAJ)

Shivkaran Buhadia v. Official Liquidator

2005-06-02

S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-The petitioner-applicant in his application is praying for grant of following relief , It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this application be allowed and in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the respondent Official Liquidator be kindly directed to remove the seal and lock from the premises belonging to the petitioner which were under the tenancy of the company (in liquidation) and to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the same forthwith to the petitioner. Any other order or direction which this Honble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Humble Petitioner Applicant. 2. The premises in question was on rent with the company (in liquidation). The petitioner-applicant, by his letter, dated 02.07.2001, addressed to the Official Liquidator for handing over of the possession of the premises, in question, to him. The Official Liquidator replied the said letter vide Annexure-1. 3. Alongwith this application the petitioner-applicant has produced a certificate of Gram Panchayat, Phagi re the title of the petitioner-applicant over the premises, in question. In the application the petitioner-applicant has mentioned that he will not claim arrears of the rent. The applicant has next undertaken that he will pay the expenses to the Official Liquidator of transportation of record of the company (in liquidation) from the said premises to Jaipur; the further undertaking has been given that the petitioner-applicant will pay the reasonable amount which the Court is fixed towards the cost of furniture, fixtures etc. 4. Reply to the application has been filed by the Official Liquidator; in para No. 3 thereof the Official Liquidator submitted that the cost of articles/furniture and other valuables of the company in liquidation, lying at the premises, in question, is Rs. 4,000/-. The copy of the inventory prepared by the Official Liquidator alongwith the minutes of the proceedings drawn on 211.2004 at the site have been submitted as Annexure R/1. 5. During the course of the arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant agreed to pay Rs. 4,000/-as the cost of the furniture, fixtures, and other articles of the company (in liquidation), lying at the premises, to the Official Liquidator. 6. 5. During the course of the arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant agreed to pay Rs. 4,000/-as the cost of the furniture, fixtures, and other articles of the company (in liquidation), lying at the premises, to the Official Liquidator. 6. The learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator gave out that the record of the company is not lying at the premises of the company (in liquidation); he further gave out that the Official Liquidator is not required the premises in question for the use of the company (in liquidation). 7. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case I am satisfied that keeping the premises, in question, with the Official Liquidation unnecessarily burden on the company (in liquidation) of the rent. That apart, the company (in liquidation) has no money or the funds and it is also doubtful that the petitioner-applicant will get any rent. That apart he has to stand in the queue in respect of the claim of rent under the category of unsecured creditors. My experience on the Bench goes to show that even by sale of assets of the company (in liquidation), even one-half of the claims of the secured creditors is not cleared. Above that why the poor landlord of the premises be deprived of his property and moreso when the company (in liquidation) does not need the same. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the application succeeds and the same is allowed. The Official Liquidator is directed to forthwith hand-over the possession of the premises, in question, to the petitioner-applicant, on being satisfied that the undertakings given by the applicant are fulfilled by him. 9. This order will not be taken as if the Court has adjudicated upon and decided the title of the petitioner-applicant in respect of the premises, in question. It will not be binding upon other person, if he claims title over the premises, in question.