JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. As all matters are interconnected, they are being considered by this common order. 2. Company Application No. 318 of 2006 is preferred by Ed-India Public Trust to direct the Official Liquidator and the sale committee to take immediate action for holding auction of the immovable assets of the company in liquidation situated near Meter Guage Railway Station at Saraspur, Ahmedabad, known as Saraspur unit. In the affidavit in support of the Judge's Summons, it has been stated by the applicant that the applicant has preferred Company Application No. 286 of 2005 before this Court for the appropriate relief to accept the offer of the applicant for Rs. 500/- per Sq. Mtr. of the land including the movables and immovable. To say in other words, the applicant is one of the offerers for the property in question who is desirous to purchase the property from the company in liquidation and has submitted the offer. Therefore, it is desirous to see that the properties of the company are sold by the sale committee or the Official Liquidator, as the case may be, at the earliest. 3. Company Application No. 370 of 2006 has been preferred by three persons viz. Mrs. Uttra Achyut Chinubhai, Aneesh Achyut Chinubhai and Mrs. Meera Kirtidev Chinubhai through their constituted power of attorney Achyut Chinubhai in capacity as the successor owner of the property seeking direction of this Court to Official Liquidator to handover the clear and vacant possession of the mill premises, which as per the applicant, is not required for efficiently carrying on winding up proceedings and it is also prayed that the Official Liquidator be directed to take appropriate steps to see that no unauthorized occupant may enter the premises and there may not be any pilferage over the property or to pay the arrears of rent, municipal tax, education cess, etc. 4. It appears that pending both the applications, Official Liquidator was directed to submit the report, for showing the status of the property and other aspects incidental thereto, Official Liquidator has filed the report which is registered as OLR No. 84 of 2006. The said report inter alia, for the subject matter of the present applications, states as under: "It is to be mentioned that Mrs. The said report inter alia, for the subject matter of the present applications, states as under: "It is to be mentioned that Mrs. Uttra Achyut Chinubhai, Aneesh Achyut Chinubhai have moved Company Application No. 370 of 2006 seeking possession of the land and building on the ground of their so-called ownership of the property. That the application has been moved after rejection of their Company Application No. 249 of 2006 vide order dated 05.05.2006 of this Hon'ble Court. That it is seen from the statement of affairs filed by Ex-director of Company that the land and building of Saraspur unit of the company is not of the ownership of N.S Mills. That, in view of these circumstances and developments, no further action for sale of the land and building of Saraspur unit of the company can be taken unless the claim of Mrs. Uttra Achyut Chinubhai, Aneesh Achyut Chinubhai regarding ownership of the land and building of Saraspur unit of the company is adjudicated by this Court in Company Application No. 370 of 2006." 5. The other aspect is pertaining to the security agency which may not be much relevant in order to decide the question as to whether the Official Liquidator should be directed to handover the possession of the property to the applicant of Company Application No. 370 of 2006 who are claiming the ownership, or not. Therefore no much discussion would be required on said aspect. 6. Since the preliminary contention has been raised on behalf of the Official Liquidator regarding filing of the earlier Company Application No. 249 of 2006 which has been disposed of vide order dated 05.05.2006, the same would be required to be considered. The copy of the order is produced by the applicant of Company Application No. 370 of 2006. It appears from the perusal of the order that the reliefs prayed in the said application were virtually the same as prayed in the present application. In the very order this Court inter alia observed at para 3, 4, 5 and 6 as under: "3. This Court has passed an order on 12.8.2004 in Company Petition No. 2 of 1998 and other cognate matters which inter alia includes Company Petition No. 65 of 1998. By virtue of the said order the Company, namely, M/s. Nanikram Shobraj Mills was ordered to be wound up. This Court has passed an order on 12.8.2004 in Company Petition No. 2 of 1998 and other cognate matters which inter alia includes Company Petition No. 65 of 1998. By virtue of the said order the Company, namely, M/s. Nanikram Shobraj Mills was ordered to be wound up. Company Petition No. 2 of 1998 was registered on the basis of the opinion forwarded by the BIFR for winding up of the Company. While disposing of the Company Petition No. 65 of 1998 this Court has observed that since the Company Petition No. 2 of 1998 is allowed and final winding up order is passed, the Company Petition Nos. 65 of 1998, 210 of 1998 and 9 of 1998 are also deemed to have been allowed and winding up order is also deemed to have been passed in these petitions. It is true that the present applicants/original petitioners in Company Petition No. 65 of 1998 have made several prayers. These prayers are as under :- "(A) Be pleased to admit this petition; (B) Be pleased to pass order for winding up of the Nanikram Sobhraj Mills Ltd., and be further pleased to appoint the Official Liquidator attached to this Hon'ble Court be the Liquidator of the said Company. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint the Official Liquidator attached to this Hon'ble Court as Provisional Liquidator of the Nanikram Sobhraj Mills Ltd., and the Official Liquidator be further directed to take over possession of the assets of the Company. (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Provisional Liquidator to hand over possession of the properties mentioned in para 1 of this petition to the respective petitioners or to pay the arrears of rent, taxes, cess and levies in respect of the properties upto date and continue to pay the rent, taxes, cess, levies and assessments in respect of the said properties till final disposal of this petition. (E) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Company and/or the Provisional Liquidator not to transfer, alienate, or part with possession of the said properties mentioned in para 1 of this petition in favour of any other persons, or deal with the said properties in any manner whatsoever, till final disposal of this petition. (F) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief’s as deemed proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. (G) Be pleased to allow this petition with costs." 4. The first and foremost prayer made by the applicants in that Company Petition is with regard to the order of winding up of Nanikram Sobhraj Mills Ltd., and for appointment of the Official Liquidator attached to this Court as the Liquidator of the said Company. Other prayers made by the applicants are with regard to the interim reliefs whereby the reliefs were sought for payment of arrears of rent, taxes, cess, levies in respect of the properties and also claiming possession of the properties and direction to the Official Liquidator not to transfer, alienate, or part with the possession of the said properties. The Court while disposing of the said petition has not granted other prayers nor it has been pressed, as the Company was ordered to be wound up in the main Company Petition No. 2 of 1998 and on that basis order was passed in Company Petition No. 65 of 1998. Even otherwise, once the winding up order is passed this prayer cannot be entertained in winding up petition. It is always open for the applicant/original petitioner to initiate separate proceeding for seeking other reliefs either by lodging claim before the Official Liquidator or by filing separate application before this Court. In any case it cannot be made the subject matter of review nor such relief can be granted in an application for review. 5. In above view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the relief which is sought for in the present application is out side the scope of the review as in the main petition also those prayers were neither considered nor granted. It is clear from the earlier order that by virtue of the winding up order passed in the main petition, no order was invited for other prayers. It is clear from the earlier order that by virtue of the winding up order passed in the main petition, no order was invited for other prayers. The applicants can therefore move separate application for these relief’s. 6. Subject to the aforesaid clarification and observation this application is accordingly disposed of." 7. The relevant aspect is that prior to preferring of the Company Application No. 249 of 2006, the applicant of Company Application No. 370 of 2006 (for the sake of convenience the applicant therein shall be referred to as the 'alleged owner/owner' of the property) has preferred Company Application No. 148 of 2006 in Company Petition No. 65 of 1998 wherein this Court observed that as no specific direction was issued by this Court for handing over of the possession when the order came to be passed on 12th August, 2004 in Company Petition No. 65 of 1998, the applicant cannot claim any relief in the present proceedings and the only remedy available to the applicant is to move appropriate application in company Petition No. 65 of 1998 for necessary clarification before the same learned Single Judge and in view of the said observation, the application was withdrawn and thereafter the Company Application No. 249 of 2006 came to be filed. 8. Therefore, at the first impression, one might gather that Company Application No. 249 of 2006 was preferred for the very relief and this Court did not grant such relief but the aforesaid order reproduced, goes to show that this Court observed that such relief cannot be within the scope of review and further observed that the applicant therefore can move separate application for such relief. 9. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the preliminary contention raised on behalf of the Official Liquidator that, as for the same relief the application was preferred and was not granted, the present application No. 370 of 2006 would not be maintainable. To consider the question of res judicata or otherwise operation of bar to the second application, if the relief is prayed and expressly or impliedly not granted, it may stand on different footing. To consider the question of res judicata or otherwise operation of bar to the second application, if the relief is prayed and expressly or impliedly not granted, it may stand on different footing. But, if the Court has declined the examination of such relief on the ground that such would be outside the scope of application, the principle of res judicata or even constructive res judicata cannot be made applicable to throw away the application at the threshold on such preliminary ground as sought to be canvassed. 10. The aforesaid takes me to examine the merits of the Company Application No. 370 of 2006 itself in context to the prayers made in the application. It appears that the following aspects are undisputed. (1) The property which is in possession of the company in liquidation is not in capacity as the owner holding title over the property. (2) The document of lease deed dated 8th May 1938 goes to show that the company in liquidation is put into the possession of the property under the agreement of lease entered into by Shri Chinubhai Madhavlal and the lease agreement was for a fixed period of 10 years. It further appears by supplementary agreement of lease dated 15.12.1939 that the additional area was also given on lease and the additional monthly rent was fixed. (3) The period of lease has expired in any case on 15.12.1949. (4) In the statement of affairs filed before the Official Liquidator the present property is not shown as that of the company in liquidation. 11. In view of the aforesaid, it can be said that the company in liquidation has continued to occupy the property after the expiry of the period of lease agreement. Mr. Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the applicant during the curse of the hearing wanted to rely upon the document dated 20.10.1942 entered into between the company in liquidation and the Managing Trustee of the owner Shri Chinubhai Madhavlal Trust for contending that thereafter the tenancy was renewed at the rate of Rs.770/- per month + Rs. 20/- as the water charges on month to month basis from 1st November, 1942 to 31st August, 1943 and it was contended that for some time such month to month tenancy continued and there was arrears of rent from October, 1990 and the company had closed down its business since 1995. 20/- as the water charges on month to month basis from 1st November, 1942 to 31st August, 1943 and it was contended that for some time such month to month tenancy continued and there was arrears of rent from October, 1990 and the company had closed down its business since 1995. Thereafter the company has not paid the rent and ultimately for the period up to 1995 the amount was deposited in the company Court and thereafter no rent has been deposited and the company has also not paid municipal tax and other taxes. 12. No record is coming forward in the report of the Official Liquidator or any other documents showing that the rent was paid or the municipal taxes are paid for the period thereafter. 13. The aforesaid goes to show that though the company is not the owner of the property, its status in the property or rights in the property cannot be said as that of under the contractual monthly tenancy but the statutory tenancy as per the provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). The fact remains that the company has continued to occupy the property since 1938 as the lessee under the contractual tenancy and after the expiry of the period, it has continued to occupy the property as the tenant under the Rent Act. The law on the aspect of, tenant in occupation of the property after the expiry of the contractual tenancy, is well settled inasmuch as if the contractual tenancy exists, the rights of the landlord and tenant would be governed by the contract unless expressly barred by any statute. After the expiry of the period, if the tenant has continued to occupy the property, his status would be protected by the statute and the terms and conditions for the rights of the landlord and tenant would be Government by the statute, which is the Rent Act in the present case. 14. After the expiry of the period, if the tenant has continued to occupy the property, his status would be protected by the statute and the terms and conditions for the rights of the landlord and tenant would be Government by the statute, which is the Rent Act in the present case. 14. Therefore, the following aspects deserve to be examined based on the fact that if the status of the company is as statutory tenant, (1) whether OL has right to continue to occupy the land, (2) whether the rights of such statutory tenants are transferable or saleable interest in the property and (3) whether the Official Liquidator for winding up of the company requires continuation of the occupation over the property or not. 15. On the first aspect, even if the period is over of the contractual tenancy and the company is in occupation of the property as the statutory tenant, it is entitled to occupy the property so long as it complies with all terms and conditions of the statute. Section 12 of the Rent Act puts an embargo upon the rights of the landlord to recover the possession so long as the tenant has paid and is ready and willing to pay the amount of standard rent or permitted increase and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, a statutory tenant would be entitled to continue to occupy the property so long as is ready and willing to pay the rent and permitted increase and complies with the other conditions consistent with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, if the company in liquidation may be through Official Liquidator, if desirous to continue the occupation over the property, it can, but the requirement would be to pay the amount of rent and the permitted increase and to observe the other terms of the tenancy consistent with the provisions of the Act. Hence, the Official Liquidator, if desirous to continue the occupation of the property, he will have to abide by the conditions for payment of the rent. In the event the rent is not paid, the claim of arrears of the rent can also be lodged by the landlord before the Official Liquidator and Official Liquidator shall be required to pay the claim of the rent to the owner. 16. In the event the rent is not paid, the claim of arrears of the rent can also be lodged by the landlord before the Official Liquidator and Official Liquidator shall be required to pay the claim of the rent to the owner. 16. So far as the rights of the landlord against the statutory tenant for recovery of the possession is concerned, they are expressly provided under Section 13 of the Act for the various circumstances as mentioned therein Clause (a) to (l). The pertinent aspect is that none of the circumstances except that the company does not require the property for winding up are alleged by the applicant owner in the present application. It also deserves to be recorded that if the owner of the property has to recover the possession under the Rent Act, the normal remedy for such owner is to file civil suit for recovery of the possession. However, as Official Liquidator is functioning under the supervision of this Court as per the provisions of the Companies Act, the present application has been preferred by the applicant owner. 17. This Court in case of a permanent lease in case of Legal Heirs of Deceased Fakir Chand Ambaram Patel v. Official Liquidator of Amruta Mills Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2002 (3) GLH 367 observed at para 22, 23, 24 and 25 as under: "22. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the purpose of enacting Rent Act was to afford protection to a tenant against dispossession by landlord under the general law. One such restriction has been imposed by the provisions of Section 12 of the Rent Act. As can be seen from provisions of Section 12 of the said Act, it is more a provision which disables a landlord from seeking possession than enables the tenant to seek protection. The result of the enactment of Section 12 of the Rent Act is that the right which the landlord otherwise had with the ordinary law being applicable to landlord and tenant, came to be restricted and conferred status of irremovability on the tenant against the landlord claiming possession of the property after determination of his tenancy. This situation has been commonly referred to as statutory tenancy as against the contractual tenancy which existed till that point of time. This situation has been commonly referred to as statutory tenancy as against the contractual tenancy which existed till that point of time. The tenant's possession would be, in a case where the contract of tenancy or lease has not come to an end, by virtue of the terms of the contract. In other words, if the tenant is entitled to possession by virtue of provision of any other statute apart from the Rent Act, such right is not affected by the provisions of the Rent Act and even if there might be a situation where some conditions stipulated in a provision of Rent Act come to be satisfied, the tenant would yet be entitled to resist the claim of landlord for possession of the premises, if otherwise entitled to dehors the provisions of the Rent Act. A tenant needs no protection against eviction by the landlord so long as he has necessary protection under the terms of the contract entered into with the landlord. A tenant's right to hold over after the termination of the contractual tenancy is different from the right to protection during the contractual tenancy and the two rights must be kept distinct from each other. In case of the former right provisions of the Rent Act come into play, while in case of the later right, ordinary law governing the rights of the tenant and landlord would become applicable. 23. It is settled law that the period of a subsisting lease cannot be curtailed in absence of a forfeiture clause in the lease deed. The contractual tenancy would thus subsist as governed by provisions of the T.P. Act and there cannot be any eviction from such tenancy. 24. At a given point of time a view prevailed that the statutory tenancy was a personal right to remain in occupation after the contractual tenancy had been determined and there was no right to property but the position today is clear and well settled. Tenancy is primarily a contract between landlord and tenant. During subsistence of a contractual tenancy the tenant has an estate or property in the subject matter of the tenancy and such an estate or property is heritable. Tenancy is primarily a contract between landlord and tenant. During subsistence of a contractual tenancy the tenant has an estate or property in the subject matter of the tenancy and such an estate or property is heritable. Therefore, upon determination of such tenancy the estate does not necessarily disappear and the status of irremovability granted in favour of the tenant by the statute makes it clear that unless the decree or an order of eviction is made against the tenant he remains tenant as he was before the determination of the contract. Thus, the incidents of such tenancy i.e. statutory tenancy and contractual tenancy are the same unless there is any provision in the Act conveying a contrary intention. 25. Once the aforesaid position in law was settled, a question arose as to whether the right of heritability was available in respect of commercial tenancies or whether such a right was restricted to residential tenancies. The said dispute also stands settled by the Apex Court : it has been laid down that if the Rent Act in question defines the tenant in substance to mean a tenant who continues to remain in possession even after the termination of the contractual tenancy till a decree of eviction against him is passed, the tenant even after the determination of the tenancy, continues to have an estate or interest in the tenanted premises and the tenancy rights both in respect of the residential premises and commercial premises are heritable." 18. The aforesaid decision of the learned Company Judge of this Court is further considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Jabal C. Lashkari v. Official Liquidator of Prasad Mills Ltd. reported at 2009 (1) GLR 158 and at para 28, this Court held as under: "(i) It is only on expiry of the period of fixed term lease that the lessors can pray for eviction of the company in liquidation or its successor in interest on the grounds which may be available under the Rent Act which may be in operation at the relevant time. (ii) Any ground contained in the agreement of lease other than or in addition to the grounds enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act shall remain inoperative during subsistence of the lease and even after expiry of the lease term. (ii) Any ground contained in the agreement of lease other than or in addition to the grounds enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act shall remain inoperative during subsistence of the lease and even after expiry of the lease term. (iii) The proceedings for eviction of a tenant under the fixed term contractual lease can be initiated during subsistence or currency of the lease only on a ground as may be enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act provided it is also enumerated as one of the grounds for forfeiture of the lease rights in the lease-deed, but not otherwise. (iv) The period of fixed term lease of 199 years is ensured and remains protected except in the cases indicated in (iii) herein above, and during this period, the rights of the lessee under the lease-deed and the Transfer of Property Act are not curtailed by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act." 19. The aforesaid goes to show that as the period of lease in the present case has admittedly expired and the occupation is continued by the company in liquidation thereafter which can be termed as that of by way of a statutory tenant, the rights of the company in liquidation as well as the rights of the owner shall stand governed by the provisions of the Rent Act and the agreement in terms of the lease deed which has expired by afflux of time would be of no importance. 20. The aforesaid discussion leads me to record the conclusion that the company in liquidation if desirous to continue to occupy the property would be entitled to occupy the property so long as it is ready and willing to pay the rent and permitted increase and the landlord would not be entitled to recover the possession on the ground other than not provided under the Bombay Rent Act. 21. However, the next aspect requires consideration would be the saleable interest of the company in liquidation in the property. It is true that such right of the tenant, even in capacity as the statutory tenant, may be for residential or may be for commercial purpose, is heritable and therefore transferable to the legal heirs. But, no such question arises for protecting the heritable rights or rights in succession of the company in liquidation in capacity as the statutory tenant. It is true that such right of the tenant, even in capacity as the statutory tenant, may be for residential or may be for commercial purpose, is heritable and therefore transferable to the legal heirs. But, no such question arises for protecting the heritable rights or rights in succession of the company in liquidation in capacity as the statutory tenant. As the property is used for commercial purpose, it will have to be examined whether a statutory tenant, which is company in liquidation in the present case, is in a position to sell or realise money by sale of the interest in the property in capacity as the statutory tenant. As observed earlier, so long as the company itself wants to make the use of the property the same is not prohibited and permitted expressly by the statute subject to the regular payment of the rent as per the provisions of the Rent Act. However, if the company has to transfer the possession of the property, the same at the most can be termed as sub-leasing/sub-letting of the property by the tenant, which, as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act is barred. Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to any contract to the contrary, it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Act for any tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein." 22. Proviso provides that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette permit in any area the transfer of interest in the premises held under such leases or class of leases and to such extent as may be specified in the notification. 23. Therefore, unless such is permitted by the notification of the State Government, it is not lawful for the tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein. 24. 23. Therefore, unless such is permitted by the notification of the State Government, it is not lawful for the tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein. 24. The notifications of the Gujarat Government dated 28.4.1969 and 7.12.1972 issued for permitting transfer under Section 15 read as under: "Notifications u/s 15(1) Proviso Permitted Transfers No. GHJ-222/BRA-1067-A dated 28th April, 1969 – In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bom. LVII of 1947), the Government of Gujarat, hereby permits in all the Saurashtra and Kutch areas of the State to which Part II of the said Act extends, all transfers and assignments by lessees of their interests in leasehold premises as and to the extent specified in the schedule annexed hereto. Schedule 1. Transfer or assignment on (i) or (ii) sale or (iii) mortgage without possession, by lessees holding building sites under leases the unexpired period of which exceeds 5 years on 31st December, 1963 provided such transfer is of the entire interest of the lessee in the building site together with the whole building standing thereon. 2. Transfer or assignment incidental to the sale of a business as a going concern together with the stock-in-trade and the goodwill thereof, provided that the transfer or assignment is of the entire interest of the transferor or assignor in such leasehold premises together with the business and the stock-in-trade and the goodwill thereof. 3. Reconveyance of mortgage property where such property comprises of a building site held under a lease together with the whole building standing thereon. 4. Transfer or assignment of trust property without consideration from one Trustee to another Trustee or from a trustee to a beneficiary where such property comprises of a building site held under a lease together with the whole building standing thereon. 5. Assignment of the whole interest of lessees in a building plot (or part of a building plot) where the assignment does not contravene any restrictive conditions of the lease in that regard. 6. Sub-letting by Government (whether the Central or any State) the premises held by it under a lease. 7. 5. Assignment of the whole interest of lessees in a building plot (or part of a building plot) where the assignment does not contravene any restrictive conditions of the lease in that regard. 6. Sub-letting by Government (whether the Central or any State) the premises held by it under a lease. 7. Transfer of interest in premises let for education if such transfer of interest is in favour a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. (Vide G.G.G., Part IV-B, dated 8.5.1969, p. 729.) (Public Works Department Notification u/s 15.(1) Proviso) Further Permitted Transfers No. G.I.J.-10-BRA-1072/15021-A dated 7.12.72 (G.G.G. pt. IVB. dated 4.1.73 p. 22) In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to section 15 of the Bom. Rent Act, 1947 (Act 57 of 1947), the Govt. of Gujarat, hereby, permits in all areas to which part II of the said Act extends, all transfers and assignments by the holders of leases and transfer or assignment to another person by the transferee irrespective of the duration thereof, to the extent specified in the schedule hereto annexed. Schedule (1) Transfer or assignments as part of or incidental to a mortgage of any leasehold premises, including the factory thereat, by an industrial concern belonging to the category eligible for loans or advances or other financial assistance admissible under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (Act 68 of 1951) thereinafter referred to as the "said Act") or the Bombay State Aid to Small Scale and Cottage Industries Rules, 1935, issued as an accompaniment to the Bombay Govt. Resolution. Development Department No. SAI-1454 dated 28th Feb. 1955, from or through the Financial Corporation established under the said Act, in favour of such Financial Corporation or the State Govt. as the case may be, for securing any such loans, advances, or other financial assistance, and (2) transfer or assignment by such Financial Corporation or State Govt, as the case may be, of said premises transferred or assigned to it. Explanation:- For the purpose of this notification, the expression "industrial concern" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the said Act." 25. The aforesaid shows that if the transfer is on account of the sale of the business as on going concern, such is permitted. Explanation:- For the purpose of this notification, the expression "industrial concern" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the said Act." 25. The aforesaid shows that if the transfer is on account of the sale of the business as on going concern, such is permitted. In the present case as the company is closed since 1995 and has discontinued its business activities, the question of transferring the business would not arise. It is an admitted position that the Official Liquidator is holding the property in the process of winding up since the company is already wound up. Had it been a case for taking over of the company which is being wound up by another company by way of amalgamation or otherwise or had it been a case where the company is to be revived by continuing its operation may be by itself or through the other company which is to take over, it may stand on different footing. But, in a case where Official Liquidator has only to liquidate the assets of the company for distribution amongst the various classes of creditors, such would not fall in the cases covered by the aforesaid notification of the State Government. The reason being, that the purchaser of the property is not to take over the on going business of the company but the purchaser is to acquire the possession for his own purpose. Therefore, it would not be in any case a situation of selling or transferring of an ongoing concern with the tenancy rights in the property but would be a case of sale of the property by way of liquidation of such property. Further, such transfer would also not fall in the category/ies as per Notification dated 7.12.1972. If the case does not fall as observed earlier in the category of the proviso as per the Government Notifications, the bar of Section 15 would operate upon the rights of the company as statutory tenant of the property. Be it noted that this Court is not considering the question of rights of a tenant of a lease of which the period has not expired but is a case where the lease period has admittedly expired and the status of the company in liquidation is as the statutory tenant. Be it noted that this Court is not considering the question of rights of a tenant of a lease of which the period has not expired but is a case where the lease period has admittedly expired and the status of the company in liquidation is as the statutory tenant. If the express bar operates under Section 15 of the Rent Act for sale or transfer in any manner by the company as the tenant, it is not possible to record the conclusion that the company would have a saleable interest in the property which is the subject matter of the present application. 26. The contents of the OLR No. 8 of 2006 if read with the report filed today and the photographs produced together with the report shows that the building is in complete dilapidated condition and the super-structure shows that the value may be realised in some cases as if it is scrape, in some cases derbies of the building structure and other materials thereon. There is no material completely available on record as to whether old constructions as exist were made by the company in liquidation or there were some constructions when the property was given on lease basis and as such a detailed inquiry may be required to be undertaken for such purpose and until that question is finalised and the OL is allowed to realise the value of such material, if any, for which investment was made by the company in liquidation, the OL would be justified in retaining the property in capacity as the statutory tenant. However, at this stage, Mr. Pandya, learned Counsel for the applicant, declared under the instructions of his client, that as per the conditions of the lease agreement no additional construction was permitted and he also stated at the bar that at one point of time when the company wanted to make construction, the suit was filed and injunction was granted by the Court and, therefore, he submitted that the constructions were all in existence as per the applicant. He also stated that if the OL is desirous to sell the superstructure over the land and appropriate the money for winding up of the company in liquidation the applicant has no objection for such purpose, provided the OL thereafter surrenders the vacant land to the applicant. He also stated that if the OL is desirous to sell the superstructure over the land and appropriate the money for winding up of the company in liquidation the applicant has no objection for such purpose, provided the OL thereafter surrenders the vacant land to the applicant. He also submitted that as per the conditions of the lease deed, there is liability on the part of the company in liquidation to pay all taxes, including the arrears of rent with permitted increases. However, he stated under the instructions of his client and declared before the Court that if direction is given by this Court to surrender the land by the OL after realisation of the price of the scrape and of the super-structure over the land, the applicant is ready to forgo the arrears of the rent and also the claim for outstanding taxes and the applicant after receipt of the vacant possession from the OL shall bear all arrears of tax over the property during the period when the same was in occupation of the company in liquidation or OL, as the case may be. 27. It further appears from the report that not only the building is in dilapidated condition, but huge expenses were, at one point of time, incurred for maintenance and preservation of the property and the security expenses are mounting. It is true that as observed earlier, the OL is entitled to retain the possession of the property in capacity as the statutory tenant. However, after the price of the super-structure in view of the aforesaid declaration made on behalf of the applicant is realised, there will not be any useful purpose for retention of the property in the process of winding up, more particularly in view of the aforesaid findings that the OL is not in a position to sell the property as the company in liquidation is not having any saleable interest in the property. If there is no saleable interest in the property and huge expenses are being incurred for preservation and maintenance of the property for indefinite period, the same is going to adversely affect the corpus of the company and ultimately the availability of the fund for distribution amongst various classes of the creditors. If there is no saleable interest in the property and huge expenses are being incurred for preservation and maintenance of the property for indefinite period, the same is going to adversely affect the corpus of the company and ultimately the availability of the fund for distribution amongst various classes of the creditors. Therefore, it appears to the Court that when on behalf of the applicant, the declaration is made to allow the OL to realise the money out of the sale of the old scrapes and of the superstructure and the applicant is also ready to forgo and abandon the rights for arrears of local rent and is also ready to bear all arrears of tax over the property, the same is also likely to result into benefits to the corpus of the company and consequently to the fund of the company. 28. The attempt was also made on the part of the OL, by Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel to contend that the status of the applicant as that of the owner of the property is not proved, therefore, this Court may not direct the OL to hand over the possession of the property to the applicant. It was submitted that the lease agreement was entered into by different parties and the applicant is a different party and, therefore, since the status of the applicant as the owner of the property is not proved, the direction may not be issued by this Court to hand over the possession of the property to the applicant even if this Court finds that there is no saleable interest in the property of the company in liquidation and the OL after sale of the super-structure would not require further retention of the property, since huge expenses are likely to be incurred for preservation of the property. 29. The learned Counsel for the applicant in support of the claim of ownership had relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Minor Anish Achyut Chinubhai v. M/s. Nanikram Sobhraj Mills Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1992(2) GLR 1133 and it was contended that in the said suit, at that time also, the company did not challenge the title of the owner Minor Anish Achyut Chinubhai and it was further contended that if the title is challenged by the tenant, the protection also may not be available under the Rent Act. It was submitted that in the affidavit dated 13th October, 2006, the applicant has shown how the present property is inherited by Achyut Chinubhai and together with the same, the relevant entry in the revenue record is also produced for such purpose. 30. It does appear that there was litigation before this Court in the case of Minor Anish Achyut Chinubhai (Supra), but it also appears that the question of title by the alleged owner - the applicant herein, was not an issue in the said decision. This Court has, in the said decision, ruled on the aspects of jurisdiction of the Court having power to entertain the suit, when the matter is covered under the provisions of the Rent Act and it also appears that the Court had no occasion to examine the aspects of the title of the person, who filed the suit. The record produced together with the affidavit prima facie goes to show that there were various properties and have been divided, inter se, amongst various classes of legal heirs and the revenue entry prima facie goes to show that the property in question is inherited by the applicant. However, on the said aspects, a concluded declaration for confirmation of the title or on the aspects of title of the applicant cannot be recorded by this Court. If such an aspect is to be undergone, a detailed inquiry after undergoing various formalities would be required to be undertaken, which possibly cannot be conveniently undertaken by this Court at this stage in the present proceedings. Therefore, it appears that suitable directions also deserve to be issued in order to ensure that no claim of the genuine owner or successor thereof is defeated under the directions of this Court or the OL acting under the directions of this Court. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the findings on the points, which have arisen for consideration can be recorded as under:- (i) The OL has right to continue to occupy the land, but in capacity as the statutory tenant under the Rent Act. (ii) The rights of the OL as statutory tenant in the property are not transferable or saleable interest in the property. (iii) The OL for the winding up of the Company may be required to continue the occupation over the property until the scrapes and the super-structure over the land are sold. (ii) The rights of the OL as statutory tenant in the property are not transferable or saleable interest in the property. (iii) The OL for the winding up of the Company may be required to continue the occupation over the property until the scrapes and the super-structure over the land are sold. Thereafter, the occupation over the land by the OL would not be required for the winding up of the company. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstances that preservation and protection of the property itself is incurring and is to incur huge expenses to the company in liquidation. 32. Under these circumstances, the following directions:- (a) The OL shall undertake the exercise for sale of the super-structure over the land on the premise that the same belongs to the company in liquidation on 'as is where is and whatever is there' basis, by getting valuation fixed by convening the meeting of the Sale Committee already constituted for the company in liquidation. The process of convening the meeting, advertisement and inviting offer and finalisation of the offer shall be completed preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. The report shall be submitted to this Court for confirmation of the sale within two weeks from the finalisation of the proceedings by the Sale Committee. The question of finalisation of the sale shall preferably be concluded within four weeks from the date of the submission of the report and the conditions shall be incorporated at the time of sale confirmation to remove the super-structure shall be preferably within a period of three months from the date of finalisation of the sale. (b) OL, after convening of the meeting within a period of four weeks, shall also issue an advertisement in the newspaper namely; Gujarat Samachar (Gujarati daily) (Ahmedabad Edition) with the details of the property, stating that the claim of ownership is made over the property by the applicant and as per the directions of the Gujarat High Court, property may be required to be surrendered to the applicant and if any person interested in the title as owner of the property has any objection for such purpose, such objection be filed with the OL within one month from such advertisement. (c) Upon any objection received, the OL shall move, within 15 days from the date of receipt of such objection, report to this Court on the said aspects for appropriate orders. In absence of objection of any other person or the Court passing orders upon such report and after removal of super-structure by the offerer/purchaser, whose offer may be accepted by this Court, whichever is later, the OL would not be required to retain the property any further. Hence, within two weeks after the said later date, after drawing proper inventory and panchnama, the possession of the property shall be handed over by the OL to the applicant. (d) It is observed that the OL shall be required to comply with the aforesaid last direction, unless there is any prohibitory order passed by any competent forum known to law. (e) Upon the surrender of the land to the applicant by the OL, the rights of the company in liquidation over the property in capacity as statutory tenant would come to an end. (f) It is also clarified that the direction to surrender the land to the OL is granted, keeping in view the declaration made by the applicant to forgo of arrears of rent and to bear the arrears of tax over the property and no claim over the super-structure, which in existence. 33. Company Application No. 370 of 2006 shall stand allowed only in terms of the aforesaid directions. 34. So far as Company Application No. 318 of 2006, preferred by one of the persons interested to purchase the land, is concerned, in view of the aforesaid order passed in Company Application No. 370 of 2006, the question of acceptance of the offer may not arise. Therefore, no direction deserves to be issued to the OL to sell the land. Hence, no orders further. The application is disposed of accordingly. So far as the OLR No. 84 of 2006 is concerned, since the aspects of OLR is already considered in the main Company Application No. 370 of 2006, the OLR shall also stand disposed of in terms of the order passed in the main Company Application No. 370 of 2006. Order accordingly.