JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present application is preferred by GIDC in the capacity as the owner of the land seeking directions against the official liquidator of two types ; one is to hold and declare that the plot is of the ownership of the GIDC and it is not the property of the company in liquidation and the consequential direction prayed by the applicant is to declare that the possession of the official liquidator is illegal and void and to be handed over to GIDC. The other consequential reliefs are prayed by the applicant based on the aforesaid main reliefs. 2. Heard Mr. Gandhi for the applicant, Mr. Jani for the official liquidator, Mr. Parmar for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Bhatt for respondent No. 3. 3. It appears from the record produced before this court that the following are the admitted positions : (1) Whole estate of GIDC is owned by GIDC and the scheme of industrial estate in exercise of the powers under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 has been floated over the land and particular plot has been allotted to the company in liquidation ; (2) As per the scheme, initially possession has been handed over on licence basis and for such purpose the licence agreement was entered into. The copy whereof is produced on page 29 ; (3) Such relationship based on the licence agreement is subsequently crystallised into the lease agreement and the copy of the lease deed is also produced by GIDC executed between GIDC and the company in liquidation ; (4) Hence, GIDC is in capacity as the landlord-lessor of the property and the company in liquidation is in capacity as the lessee of the property. 4. On the aspect as to whether the lessor is entitled to get back the possession of the property of the company in liquidation upon the winding up of the company may be on the ground that the company has stopped the business and it does not require the property for its objects, etc. 4. On the aspect as to whether the lessor is entitled to get back the possession of the property of the company in liquidation upon the winding up of the company may be on the ground that the company has stopped the business and it does not require the property for its objects, etc. the question is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of Fakirchand Ambaram Patel v. Official Liquidator, Amruta Mills Ltd. [2002] 3 GLH 367 and in the said case, ultimately, the court has summarised at paragraph 40 as under (page 612 of 116 Comp Cas) : "To summarise : (a) Leasehold interest is an intangible asset, which is valuable in nature though the valuation may differ from case to case depending upon the unexpired period of lease. (b) Such an asset is transferable subject to the same terms and conditions as may be stipulated in the lease deed. (c) Once there is a contract which has not been determined, the relationship of the parties to the contract continues to subsist till the period for which the contract is in existence subject to an express condition to the contrary. (d) There is a distinction between the point of time when an order of winding up is made and at the point of time when an order of dissolution is made the company continues to exist between the two termini. (e) A condition in the lease deed permitting a lessee to give back the possession as and when the lessee chooses to do so cannot be converted into an obligation entitling the lessor to seek possession. (f) A condition in the lease deed by way of requirement to pay rent, per se, does not create an onerous covenant, once readiness and willingness is shown by the lessee, or on its behalf, to discharge such obligation." 5. The aforesaid decision has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this court. 6. If the matter is examined in the light of the aforesaid position of law, GIDC would not be entitled to get back the possession of the property so long as the conditions and the obligations of the lease deed are complied with. The aforesaid decision has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this court. 6. If the matter is examined in the light of the aforesaid position of law, GIDC would not be entitled to get back the possession of the property so long as the conditions and the obligations of the lease deed are complied with. Similarly, the rights of the allottee under the lease deed are of the properties of the company in liquidation and therefore if the official liquidator has taken over the possession of the property by stepping into the shoes of the lessee, such an action cannot be said to be illegal or void as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the applicant. 7. However, as per the above referred decision the condition in the lease deed by way of requirement to pay rent, per se, does not create an onerous covenant once the readiness and willingness is shown by the lessee or on its behalf to discharge such obligation. Therefore, for preservation of the rights as the lessee may be by the company in liquidation who was the allottee or the official liquidator stepping into the shoes of the company in liquidation, has to show the willingness to discharge all the obligations as per the lease deed and it is not open to the official liquidator to contend that outstanding dues of the lessor as per the lease agreement including the rent would fall in the category of debt of the company under section 530 of the Act. The outstanding dues of the company with the other creditors including the secured creditors or the workers or statutory bodies would stand on different footing because so far as the landlord as the lessor and the company as the lessee is concerned, the relation cannot be termed as that of the creditor and the debtor. The relation between the lessor and the lessee is between the owner of the property and the allottee of the property whose right is created to the extent of lease. The life of lease is dependent upon the compliance with the conditions of the lease and is not in the capacity as the creditor who has to recover the amount. The relation between the lessor and the lessee is between the owner of the property and the allottee of the property whose right is created to the extent of lease. The life of lease is dependent upon the compliance with the conditions of the lease and is not in the capacity as the creditor who has to recover the amount. Even otherwise also, the lessor in the capacity as the owner of the property would enjoy better right in the property than that of the lessee who may be put in possession under the express terms and conditions of the lease agreement. Therefore, the contention that the outstanding amount as per the lease deed would fall in the category of the debt of the company in liquidation cannot be accepted. 8. If the principles as observed in the above referred decision read with the observations made hereinabove are considered, it will be the obligation of the official liquidator to continue to honour and discharge the liability if any of the company in liquidation towards the lessor and it is only thereafter the official liquidator may be in a position to sell the leasehold rights in the property of the company in liquidation. 9. Mr. Jani, learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator at the first instance attempted to contend that even if such liability exists of the official liquidator it may be bifurcated into two parts, i.e., up to the date of winding up and after the date of the winding up. He submitted that after the date of winding up, there is no liability of the official liquidator to discharge the obligations with the lessor. 10. In this regard rule 157 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, may be relevant. The same reads as under : "157. When any rent or other payment falls due at stated period, and the order or resolution to wind up is made at any time other than one of those periods, the persons entitled to the rent or payment may prove for a proportionate part thereof up to the date of winding up order or resolution as if the rent or payment accrued due from day to day. Provided that where the liquidator remains in occupation of the premises demised to a company which is being wound up, nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the landlord of such premises to claim payment by the company, or the liquidator, of rent during the period of the company's or liquidator's occupation." 11. The aforesaid shows that if the liquidator has remained in occupation of the premises demised to a company which is being wound up, the rights of the landlord of such premises to claim the payment by the company, or the liquidator, of rent during the period of the company's or liquidator's occupation, shall not be prejudiced or affected. Therefore, the liability to discharge the obligation as per the lease agreement with the lessor continues even after the date of winding up, so long as the liquidator remains in occupation of the property. It may be that when the property is to be sold of the company in liquidation, the condition may be provided of liability to be discharged by the purchaser after the date of winding up and the said aspect at the most may remain in the arena of modulating the terms and conditions of the sale but thereby it cannot be said that the liquidator would be relieved of from the liability with the lessor as per the lease agreement merely because the company is ordered to be wound up or the same relates to the period after the winding up. As such, the rights of the lessee, which may be company in liquidation, flows from the better rights of the lessor in the property and if the property is to be made transferable in favour of any third party by way of sale through the company court or otherwise, the obligations, if any, under the lease agreement are required to be discharged by the official liquidator so long as the possession of the property has remained with the official liquidator. 12. 12. Under these circumstances, it appears that the following can be summarised : (1) The rights of the company in liquidation of a property which is allotted by GIDC to the company would continue to remain as that of the lessee after the date of winding up ; (2) All obligations as existed prior to the winding up shall continue to remain as obligations even after the date of winding up until the property remains in occupation of the official liquidator and sold to third party ; (3) The rights of the company in liquidation in the capacity as the lessee of the property are salable interest which can be realised by sale under the supervision of the company court ; (4) The official liquidator or the sale committee or the company court may provide for express condition in the sale for liability to be discharged with the lessor prior to the date of winding up by the official liquidator and to be borne by the purchaser after the date of the winding up. However, incorporation of such condition in no manner would adversely affect the rights of the lessor for recovering the amount as per the lease deed from the property in question and such would be only by way of inter se arrangement between the official liquidator in the capacity as the vendor and the purchaser of the property ; (5) It will be for the official liquidator to settle the amount to be paid and/or payable by the company in liquidation with the lessor as per the lease agreement and to clear such outstanding dues. If the condition is expressly provided for liability to be discharged by the purchaser for the period after the date of winding up, the purchaser may settle such amount with the lessor GIDC ; (6) It will be required for GIDC to transfer the leasehold rights on the name of the purchaser after the sale has taken place under the supervision of the company court and the obligations, as per the lease agreement, are discharged prior to the transaction ; (7) The purchaser of the property leasehold right shall step into the shoes of the original lessee company in liquidation and the rights between the purchaser and GIDC lessor shall continue to remain in operation as per the lease agreement after the date of the purchase ; (8) In the event, there is any dispute on the aspects of settlement of the amount recoverable by GIDC in the capacity as the lessor either with the official liquidator or with the purchaser, the matter can be considered by the company court for finalisation of the amount and upon the payment so made to GIDC lessor, it would not be open to GIDC lessor to decline the transfer in favour of the purchaser ; and (9) So far as any other liability of the lessee towards local taxes out standing of the notified area, it can be termed as individual liability of such company in liquidation who is occupier of the property and such can be equated with the other taxes of the local authorities. As per the decision of the apex court in the case of AI Champdany Industries Ltd. v. Official Liquidator [2009] 4 SCC 486, the amount outstanding towards such taxes would fall in the category of debt under section 530 and such taxes would not be recoverable as obligations to be discharged by the company in liquidation as lessee with GIDC. 13. In view of the aforesaid, if the facts of the present case are further considered, it cannot be said that the action of the official liquidator for taking over the possession of the property of the company in liquidation was illegal or void nor the possession of the property can be ordered to be handed over to GIDC. 13. In view of the aforesaid, if the facts of the present case are further considered, it cannot be said that the action of the official liquidator for taking over the possession of the property of the company in liquidation was illegal or void nor the possession of the property can be ordered to be handed over to GIDC. However, even if it is observed that GIDC is the owner of the property but the same is in the capacity as the lessor and the company in liquidation is in the capacity as the lessee and therefore the rights in the property of the company in liquidation as per the lease agreement are declared as subsisting but on condition that the company in liquidation will be required to discharge all obligations as per the lease agreement with the applicant. 14. Under the above circumstances, the application is allowed only to the aforesaid extent. The official liquidator to settle the amount with GIDC with the bifurcation of prior to the date of winding up and after the date of winding up. Such outstanding liability towards GIDC as may be finally settled, would be reflected in the advertisement for sale of the property. In view of the above, the relief for entrustment of the possession to the applicant cannot be granted. 15. The application disposed of accordingly.