Judgment :- I.P. Mukerji, J. BRIEF FACTS: Kolkata T.V. is a fairly popular Bengali news television channel. It is run by a company, R.P. Techvision (I) Pvt. Ltd. This company operates from an area of about 10,000 sq.ft. in a premises numbered as 119, Park Street, Kolkata- 16. The building is called. “White House”. The owner of the property is Calcutta Business Centre. How R.P. Techvision came to occupy this 10,000 sq. ft. area is quite important. Another company Xenitis Info Tech Ltd. occupied this area on or from 1st December, 2005, as a licensee of Calcutta Business Centre. The licence agreement was dated 12th December, 2005 with effect from 1st December, 2005. The licence fee was Rs.6,14,000/- per month. On 21st March, 2006 Xenitis wrote to Calcutta Business Centre to allow SST Media Pvt. Ltd., their sister concern, to carry on the same business from the property. By their reply of the same date Kolkata Business Centre agreed. However, Calcutta Business Centre made it plain that SST Media Pvt. Ltd. would not be treated as a sub-lessee and that the terms and conditions of the above agreement would remain the same. It appears that Xenitis was unable to pay the licence fees. Arrears accumulated. By a letter dated 22nd Augutst, 2007 Calcutta Business Centre proposed to Xenitis that SST Media Pvt. Ltd. be recognized as the licensee, transferring their security deposit of Rs.36,86,000/- to the credit of SST Media. There was no reply to this letter. The default in payment of licence fees, apparently continued. On 9th October, 2007 Kolkata Business Centre issued a letter terminating the licence agreement with Xenitis and asking them to handover vacant possession of the property to them before the expiry of 31st December, 2007. It is alleged that Xenitis issued a letter dated 8th October, 2007 received by Kolkata Business Centre after 9th October, 2007 consenting to transfer of the licence agreement in favour of SST Media. By their letter of 29th December, 2007, Xenitis stated that it should be presumed that they handed over possession of the property to Kolkata Business Centre “with the expiry of the 30th day of June, 2007 or 31st December, 2007 which date suits you”. According to Xenitis SST Media was being recognised as a direct licence since July, 2007. By their letter of 29th December, 2007, Xenitis stated that it should be presumed that they handed over possession of the property to Kolkata Business Centre “with the expiry of the 30th day of June, 2007 or 31st December, 2007 which date suits you”. According to Xenitis SST Media was being recognised as a direct licence since July, 2007. The contention of Calcutta Business Centre is that upon termination of the leave and licence agreement of Xenitis SST Media became a trespasser and that they were unable to obtain vacant possession of the property from them. But according to R.P. Techvision, about which I will state later, since Xenitis had given consent to SST media becoming a licensee before the letter of termination, SST Media had become a licensee under Kolkata Business Centre. The possession of the property could not be obtained by Calcutta Business Centre after 31st December, 2007. Xenitis had moved out. SST Media Pvt. Ltd. continued to be in possession. In any event the licence agreement expired on 30th November, 2008, by efflux of time. In February/March 2008 a suit was filed in this Court (C.S. 74 of 2008) accompanied by two applications (G. A. 2042 of 2008 under Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules and G.A. No. 1200 of 2008) by Calcutta Business Centre against Xenitis and SST Media for summary judgment and for various other reliefs. Certain interim orders were passed including accepting the proposal of SST Media to pay a sum of Rs.6,14,000/- per month as occupation charges to Calcutta Business Centre without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Meanwhile on an application under Section 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 instituted in this Court against SST Media by a creditor, on 21st May, 2009, the company was directed to wound up. At or about this time, another entity entered the field. Its name was R.P. Techvision (I) Pvt. Ltd. It appears that in or about September, 2009 the employees of the SST Media took out an application under Section 466 of the Companies Act 1956 (C.A. No. 651 of 2009) to bring R.P. Techvision to revive the company in liquidation on the basis, of a scheme to be presented before the Court. On 1st September, 2009 this Court stayed the winding up. On 1st September, 2009 this Court stayed the winding up. It seems that immediately on stay of the winding up if not earlier, R.P. Techvision took over the business of SST Media. They started operating from the said property. On 22nd September, 2009 this Court directed a sum of Rs.2 crores to be deposited by R.P. Techvision (I) Pvt. Ltd. With the Official Liquidator. On this condition the stay was continued. On 8th January, 2010 the application for revival of the company by R.P. Tech Vision (C.A. No. 651 of 2009) along with a connected application (C.A. No. 699 of 2009) was dismissed. An appeal was preferred and once again the winding up was stayed. On 16th February, 2010, the appeal was dismissed and the Official Liquidator was directed to pay the occupation charges of Calcutta Business Centre which had fallen due, @ Rs.6,14,000/- per month from 1st September, 2009 till 16th February, 2010. A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the workers but before the Supreme Court of India but was withdrawn on 25th February, 2010. On 16th April, 2010 an independent appeal was filed by R.P. Tech Vision (I) Pvt. Ltd. before a Division bench of this Court challenging the order dated 8th January, 2010. This appeal was dismissed by the Division bench of 16th April, 2010. SUPREME COURT ORDERS: Next R.P. Techvision approached the Supreme Court. By an interim order passed in the above appeal, on 4th May, 2010 R.P. Techvision was allowed to carry on its business. By another interim order made on 14 th May, 2010 the said Court, inter alia, directed that out of a sum of Rs. 2 crores deposited with the Official Liquidator he should pay to Calcutta Business Centre Rs. 6.14 lakhs per month as occupation charges. The Special Leave Petition was heard as an appeal by the Supreme Court and disposed of on 17th January, 2011. A lot of arguments was based on this Supreme Court order which is inserted below: “Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 14th May, 2010, the Official Liquidator has paid to the landlord (Calcutta Business Centre) occupation charges in the sum of Rs.85,33,249/-, which covers the period June, 2009 to July, 2010. We are further informed that the Liquidator has paid such charges upto 30th November, 2010. We are further informed that the Liquidator has paid such charges upto 30th November, 2010. We make it clear that receipt of occupation charges by the landlord (Calcutta Business Centre) will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending eviction proceedings being suit No. 74 of 2008. The name of the Company, which is in liquidation is SST Media Private Limited. We hereby direct the business of the Company in liquidation to be sold by the Liquidator as a going concern by public auction. In the auction, the petitioner herein will have a right to bid and to claim the amounts spent by the petitioner after passing of the winding-up order on 21st May, 2009, for keeping the channel in operation, including, payment of salary to the workers (300 workers). The amount spent post winding-up has been shown by the Court appointed Auditor in two Reports in the aggregate sum of Rs.19,78,68,334.84. The Reports are dated 1st October, 2010 and 14 th January, 2011, respectively. It is further clarified that the advertisement for public auction shall indicate the actual amount spent by the petitioner herein during the post-winding up period as per the certificate of the Auditor appointed by the Court. Needless to add that the sale will go for confirmation before the Company Court and at that time, it would be open to the petitioner herein to seek adjustment of the amount paid by it during the post-winding up period in case the petitioner becomes the highest bidder in the public auction. We once again make it clear that our Order passed today will not prejudice the rights of the landlord in the pending eviction proceedings. The Order passed today will supercede the Order of the High Court.” The above judgment of the Supreme Court has to be carefully scrutinized. This scrutiny is very important. The fate of these matters will turn on it. First of all, the Court held that the “business” of S.S.T. Media had to be sold. Next, it said that it was to be sold as a going concern, by public auction. The sale was to be confirmed by the Company Court. The order passed would not prejudice the rights of Calcutta Business Centre in the pending eviction proceedings. First of all, the Court held that the “business” of S.S.T. Media had to be sold. Next, it said that it was to be sold as a going concern, by public auction. The sale was to be confirmed by the Company Court. The order passed would not prejudice the rights of Calcutta Business Centre in the pending eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court recognised the right of R.P. Techvision to bid when the business of the Company was sold as a going concern. While passing its final order on 17th January, 2011 the Supreme Court noted that after the order of 14th May, 2010 the Official Liquidator had paid Rs. 85,33,249/- from the said fund of Rs. 2 crores in his hands. OCCUPATION CHARGES: Now, these occupation charges were sometimes paid, often they remained unpaid. During the hearing of these applications, interim orders were passed by me directing payment of occupation charges at the above rate, partly from the fund in the hands of the Official Liquidator and partly by payment by R.P. Techvision into the account of the Official Liquidator from which the latter was directed to make payment to Calcutta Business Centre. LETTER FOR DIRECTION: On 20th April, 2011, the Official Liquidator filed a letter for direction for sale of the assets of the company. This letter was taken out further to the above final order of the Supreme Court. The annexure to the letter contained a list of numerous equipments, apparatus, accessories and other moveable items. These were the only assets that the company in liquidation owned. The Official liquidator did not consider the company in liquidation to have any right over the property. SUBMISSIONS It was submitted on behalf of Calcutta Business Centre by Mr. Goutam Chakmraborty and Mr. Tilak Bose, learned Senior Advocates that R.P. Techvision had no right whatsoever to remain on the property. They were a trespasser. Upon determination of the licence of Xenitis, neither SST Media nor R.P. Tech Vision had any semblance of right over the property. They were liable to be evicted by the process of this Court, any time. Therefore, whatever might be the fate of the winding up of the Company and the consequential sale of its assets and business, Calcutta Business Centre wanted the property back. It could not be part of the assets of the company in liquidation. They were liable to be evicted by the process of this Court, any time. Therefore, whatever might be the fate of the winding up of the Company and the consequential sale of its assets and business, Calcutta Business Centre wanted the property back. It could not be part of the assets of the company in liquidation. The Official Liquidator was obliged to disclaim the property under S. 535 as it was onerous. Furthermore, once the Company was in liquidation, the Company Court had the absolute right to decide on the right of any person occupying the company’s property. If such a person was found to be a trespasser this Court had the right to evict such person under Section 446 of the Act. Calcutta Business Centre claimed the right to receive the property by a decree to be passed by this Court in the Civil Suit filed by it or in the alternative by exercise of a right of disclaimer by the Official Liquidator under Section 535 of the Companies Act or by the exercise of powers under S. 446 or both. It was argued before me that any other assets apart from the above movables which the company could possibly possess were its technical skill and goodwill. On the other hand the defence of R.P. Techvision was that by the above Supreme Court order the property had to be sold as a going concern. The property could not be sold as a going concern after eviction of R.P. Techvision. The licence to operate the television channel was in favour of R.P. Techvision to operate the channel from 119, Park Street. If they were evicted the licence would become inoperative. Moreover, the Supreme Court had recognised the right of R.P. Techvision to bid at the auction sale and buy the business of the company as a going concern. On behalf of R.P. Techvision and various friendly groups in the organisation supporting it like workers’ union, employees’ associations and so on, submissions were made first by Mr. H.K. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate, for R.P. Techvision, followed by Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Mr. Bhaskar Sen and Mr. S.P. Sarkar, and Mr. Ranjan Deb, learned Senior Advocates. Arguments were made as to what was meant by a going concern. Mr. Bhaskar Sen showed me the following definition of a going concern from Black’s Law Dictionary. H.K. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate, for R.P. Techvision, followed by Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Mr. Bhaskar Sen and Mr. S.P. Sarkar, and Mr. Ranjan Deb, learned Senior Advocates. Arguments were made as to what was meant by a going concern. Mr. Bhaskar Sen showed me the following definition of a going concern from Black’s Law Dictionary. “going concern: A commercial enterprise actively engaging in business with the expectation of indefinite continuance. – Also termed going business” A judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jayprakash Shamsundar Mandare Vs. Laxminarayan Murlidhar Mundade and others reported in AIR 1983 Bom 364 had the occasion to discuss what was meant by a going concern. It was shown to me by learned counsel. It states as under: “9. It is not possible to accept what is being suggested by Mrs. Shenoi. Under Cl. (2) of the Schedule to the notification, what is to be assigned is not a mere business in the abstract sense but a business as a going concern with the stock-in-trade and the goodwill thereof. On the admission of the first defendant himself which admission has been noticed by the learned District Judge in para 9 of his judgment, his business had come to a standstill. In other words, there was no business at all. If there was a business, it was not a business which was being carried on a going concern as required under Cl. (2) of the Schedule to the Government notification. Moreover, the first defendant has given further admission that no transaction had taken place in the year 1972. No transaction took place between the Diwali of 1972 and the date of assignment. In other words, the business had come to a total standstill for more than a year before the date of assignment. In this state of affairs, it cannot be said that there was of the first defendant a business as a going concern. 11. Mrs. Shenoi made an attempt to draw a distinction between what she called a running business and a business as a going concern. It is not necessary to dwell at length upon this distinction. What we have to find out is whether there was a business as a going concern which could have been transferred or assigned by the first defendant to the second defendant. It is not necessary to dwell at length upon this distinction. What we have to find out is whether there was a business as a going concern which could have been transferred or assigned by the first defendant to the second defendant. If a business is to be characterised as a going concern that business must be run at the time of the assignment. In other words, the business must be a live business, a going business where transactions take place from time to time though not with clockwise regularity. For a business to go on, there must be a stock-in-trade in the suit premises. On the other hand if, as the first defendant himself has admitted, for more than a year before the date of assignment no transaction has taken place at all in the suit premises and his business had come to a standstill, then one cannot resist the conclusion that there was no stock-intrade at all in the suit premises which could have been transferred as has been purportedly done under Exhibit 77. 12. One test of determining as to whether the business is a going concern is to find out whether the assignee after the assignment would be in a position to carry on the business which was being carried on in the suit premise by the assignor. If there was a stock-intrade in the premises, business of which is sought to be transferred, it would provide some indication that there was a business which was a going concern. Ultimately whether a business was a going concern or not is a question of fact. On the facts of this case, we have no manner of doubt on the evidence which has been led by the defendants in the Court below that there was no business as a going concern which could have been transferred by the first defendant to the second defendant.” It was submitted, citing Section 456 (1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 that upon winding up of a company its properties, effects and actionable claims, are taken custody of by the Official Liquidator. Custody would be deemed to be that of the Court. Furthermore, Section 457 (b), of the Act was cited to argue that the Official Liquidator had the power to carry on the business of the company for its beneficial winding up. Custody would be deemed to be that of the Court. Furthermore, Section 457 (b), of the Act was cited to argue that the Official Liquidator had the power to carry on the business of the company for its beneficial winding up. It was said that by orders of the Supreme Court the Official Liquidator was theoretically in custody of the property and the effects of the company in liquidation but in reality it was R.P. Techvision which was in custody thereof and carrying on the business which the company, now in liquidation carried on. Allowing R.P. Techvision to carry on the business would be for beneficial winding up of the company as sale of thebusiness as a going concern to this organisation, which was given a right to bid at the time of sale of the business of the company, would enure to the benefit of the creditors. Hence, the business which is being carried out now is for the beneficial winding up of the company. DISCUSSION: I will read Section 535 of the Companies Act: “535. Disclaimer of onerous property in case of a company which is being wound up.—(1) Where any part of the property of a company which is being wound up consists of – (a) land of any tenure, burdened with onerous covenants; (b) ……………………………. (c) Any other property which is unsaleable or is not readily saleable, by reason of its binding the processor thereof either to the performance of any onerous act or to the payment of any sum of money; or (d) ………………….. The liquidator of the company, notwithstanding that he has endeavoured to sell or has taken possession of the property, or exercised any act of ownership in relation thereto, or done anything in pursuance of the contract, may, with the leave of the [Tribunal] and subject to the provisions of this section, by writing signed by him, at any time within twelve month after the commencement of the winding up or such extended period as may be allowed by the [Tribunal], disclaim the property: ………………………………………………. (2) The disclaimer shall operate to determine, as from the date of disclaimer, the rights, interest, and liabilities of the company, and the property of the company, in or in respect of the property disclaimed, but shall not, except so far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the company and the property of the company from liability, affect the rights or liabilities of any other person.” In United Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator and Ors reported in (1994) 79 Company Cases 262 cited by Mr. Mitra, the Supreme Court opined as follows: “While the aforesaid direction will dispose of the appeal, we would like to say, having heard counsel on the merits of the appeal, that we are not satisfied that the Division Bench appreciated the purpose of the provisions of section 535 of the Companies Act. Thereunder, the High Court may give leave to the official liquidator to disclaim land of any tenure which is part of the property of the company in liquidation if it is burdened with onerous covenants. The intention of section 535 is to protect the creditors of the company in liquidation and not mulct them by reason of onerous covenants. The power under section 535 is not to be lightly exercised. Due care and circumspection have to be bestowed. It must be remembered that an order permitting disclaimer, while it frees the company in liquidation of the obligation to comply with covenants, puts the party in whose favour the covenants are, to serious disadvantage. The court must, therefore, be fully satisfied that there are onerous covenants, covenants which impose a heavy burden upon the company in liquidation, before giving leave to disclaim them.” In that case the Supreme Court disapproved the disclaimer of land which was leased to the company in liquidation for 99 years with the option of renewal for a further 99 years, for a meagre rent of Rs.1,200/- per month. Again in the case of Board of Trustees, Port of Kolkata, In re reported in (2004)119 Comp Cases Page 637 cited by Mr. Bhaskar Sen, learned Senior Advocate, a lease in favour of the company in liquidation was in issue. The Guwahati High Court held that retention of the property was necessary to bring the winding up proceedings to a successful conclusion and that parting with it “may cause serious hindrance in the winding up proceedings”. Bhaskar Sen, learned Senior Advocate, a lease in favour of the company in liquidation was in issue. The Guwahati High Court held that retention of the property was necessary to bring the winding up proceedings to a successful conclusion and that parting with it “may cause serious hindrance in the winding up proceedings”. In the case of Legal Heirs of Deceased Fakirchand Ambaram Patel V. Official Liquidator, Amruta Mills Ltd. reported in 116 Comp Cases 588 cited by the same learned Counsel, a lease in favour of the company was involved before the Gujarat High Court. The Court refused to disclaim the property on the ground that it was a valuable asset and hence could not be onerous for the company. I observe now, that in all these three cases, valuable leases in favour of the company without onerous covenants were involved. The Courts held that they be retained for beneficial winding up of the company. Now, I would like to read Section 446 (2): “446. Suits stayed on winding up order. – (1) ……………………………………. [(2) [Tribunal] shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of – (a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company; (b) any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India); (c) any application made under section 391 by or in respect of the company; (d) any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or rise in course of the winding up of the company, Whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted or is instituted or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960 (65 of 1960).]” A division bench of this Court in the case of Wellman Wacoma Ltd. Vs. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) 4 CHN 645 , cited by Mr. Chakrabarty remarked that Section 446 of the Act had to be read and applied in conjunction with Section 535. Adjudication of any claim by or against the company under these sections, on affidavits could be termed as the “due process of law”. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) 4 CHN 645 , cited by Mr. Chakrabarty remarked that Section 446 of the Act had to be read and applied in conjunction with Section 535. Adjudication of any claim by or against the company under these sections, on affidavits could be termed as the “due process of law”. In that case in 1970 Wellman Incandescent Ltd. had become a tenant of a bunglow under Tivoli Park Apartments Pvt. Ltd. The lessee or tenant company was wound up on 24th September, 2002. Tivoli Park made an application for disclaimer asking the Official Liquidator to deliver vacant possession of the premises in question. It was contended that the tenancy stood terminated upon winding up of the tenant company. The property was in the possession of another company Wellman Wacoma Ltd. It was found that no tenancy had been created in favour of Wellman Wacoma which was a trespasser. The division bench decided two important things. Any question which might arise in the course of winding up of the company could be decided by the Court in a summary manner upon affidavits, under Section 446 read with Section 535 of the Act. The process could be taken as the “due process of law”. The Court could evict a trespasser by that process. The Court allowed disclaimer of the property in favour of the landlord Tivoli Park Apartments Ltd. The same ratio was pronounced by two earlier division bench judgments of our Court in Vidyadhar Upadhyay Vs. Sree Sree Madan Gopal Jew & Ors reported in 67 Comp Cases 394 and in Global Travel and Exchange Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court Calcutta reported in [2011] 168 Comp Cases 425 (Cal). One golden thread runs through all these cases. It is this principle. After a winding up order has been passed against a company, it is one of the duties of the Official Liquidator to gauge whether a particular property is beneficial for the company or not. It should not be forgotten that in any liquidation it is his duty to ensure that the properties in his hands are preserved and prevented from deterioration, alienation and damage. He is to see that the liabilities are reduced as much as possible so that upon sale of the properties of the company, the maximum amount can be distributed amongst the creditors, contributories and so on. He is to see that the liabilities are reduced as much as possible so that upon sale of the properties of the company, the maximum amount can be distributed amongst the creditors, contributories and so on. In discharging this responsibility, he is occasionally to consider like any prudent landholder or lessee, whether to get rid of certain assets which are not income producing or do not have any value or are saddled with liabilities, onerous covenants and so on. He is to evaluate whether upon surrender of a property, the net value of the other assets (assets – liabilities) increases. If that is the case, the property is of no value to the company. He is justified in disclaiming it. It is quite undisputed and reasonably clear that the company in liquidation was and thereafter R.P. Techvision is more or less a trespasser on the property. The licence has been terminated or at any rate it has expired. No higher right was even claimed by R.P. Techvision. Now, how is the property used? It is of no use for the purpose of carrying on the winding up of the company. The company has a lot of equipments, apparatus, accessories and other moveable items in it, which are undoubtedly its assets. They could easily be housed in a lesser space in a less expensive locality. If R.P. Techvision was not there, the Official Liquidator would have been in possession thereof. He would have been, had he retained the property, in all probability, been liable to pay Rs. 6.14 lacs per month as occupation charges to Calcutta Business Centre. Now, the Official Liquidator does not have to pay these occupation charges. It is paid in a round about way. R.P. Techvision is making payment to the Official Liquidator who is handing it over to Calcutta Business Centre. In other words, somebody else is occupying the property in place of the Official Liquidator and paying occupation charges directly to the landlord. The Official Liquidator cannot and even if he be permitted by the Court will get nothing, if he tries to assign his rights of a trespasser in favour of somebody else. This property is akin, in my opinion, to the property in the Wellman Wacoma case where the company in liquidation had no right to occupy the same. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the above principles of law, R.P. Techvision cannot remain on the property. This property is akin, in my opinion, to the property in the Wellman Wacoma case where the company in liquidation had no right to occupy the same. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the above principles of law, R.P. Techvision cannot remain on the property. The Official Liquidator has to disclaim the property or this Court has to pass orders for eviction of R.P. Techvision and delivery of vacant possession to the Official Liquidator. He has to do so for another reason. Being a statutory authority, the Official liquidator is duty bound to give back the property, over which the company in liquidation has no rights, to its owner. If that is the order there would be no real business to sell. There cannot be sale of any “going concern” as directed by the Supreme Court. Hence, there would be breach of its order. Nonetheless the Supreme Court has preserved the right of the landlord in the eviction proceedings. In my opinion, the mandate of the Supreme Court would be carried out if R.P. Techvision is allowed to remain on the property, for a limited period of time. That period of time I reckon should not be later than 31st May, 2014. Our Division bench has given such breathing space to a trespasser (See Ravi Kumar Agarwal Vs. Tarun Kumar Ghose reported in 2009 (4) CHN 602 ). The Official Liquidator should advertise sale of the “business as a going concern” by stipulating that any buyer of the business would have to vacate the premises 119, Park Street, Kolkata – 16 by that date. The time to publish the advertisement by the Official Liquidator is peremptorily fixed as, by 15th June 2013. A letter for direction for confirmation of sale of the business and assets of the company in liquidation should be filed by the Official Liquidator, peremptorily by 31st July, 2013. If R.P. Techvision is the successful buyer they should find another place to do the same business after 31st May, 2014. Any other buyer should do likewise. Upto 31st May, 2014 or till the property becomes vacant, whichever is earlier the occupier of the property would pay to Calcutta Business Centre, occupation charges @ 6.14 lacs per month, through the Official Liquidator, as is being done now. Any other buyer should do likewise. Upto 31st May, 2014 or till the property becomes vacant, whichever is earlier the occupier of the property would pay to Calcutta Business Centre, occupation charges @ 6.14 lacs per month, through the Official Liquidator, as is being done now. The Official Liquidator is directed to handover vacant possession of the property to Calcutta Business Centre by 15th June, 2014 or within 15 days of the property becoming vacant, whichever is earlier. After expiry of 31st May, 2014 any occupier would be liable to be evicted from the premises by the Official Liquidator by use of police force. I order accordingly. The buyer would have to obtain the licence to operate from any other property after expiry of 31st May, 2014. This decision of the Court is to be taken as a judgment and decree. All the applications are disposed of by this judgment and decree. ALP 7 of 2008 is allowed. The defendant No. 1 and 4 in Suit No. 74 of 2008 may file their written statements by 17th June, 2013. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment/ order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.