JUDGMENT D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. In the company application which is being disposed of by this order, the applicant is the landlord of office premises situated on the ground floor of a building known as Jaya Shree Chambers, situate at 82, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 023. The Applicant has sought a direction from the Court to the Liquidator of the Bank of Karad Limited to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the office premises. The Bank of Karad was the tenant in respect of the office premises situated on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 493.71. The applicant purchased the premises under a registered deed of conveyance on 11-8-1995, after which a letter or attornment came to be issued. Bank of Karad was ordered to be wound up with effect from 27-5-1992 by an order dated 28-7-1994 of the Court.
2. The liquidator filed an affidavit dated 8-2-2000 in these proceedings stating that in the premises in question which are also popularly known as the Oak Lane premises, all the records of the Bank of Karad, which is a 'scam' ridden bank have been stored and are presently lying. The original safe of the Bank, it is stated, is also kept in the premises. The liquidator therefore, stated that since the documents were of an extremely sensitive nature and were required to be stored therein, he did not consider it fit to utilize the premises for his daily work. The liquidator deposed that there was no other place available for keeping the records of the Bank in liquidation. The liquidator stated that as many as 75 cases are pending in this Court apart from various suits pending in other Courts pertaining to the Bank. The Special Court is also seized of several important matters where the claim against the Bank of Karad is to the tune of Rs. 800 Crores. Some of the records have been seized by the CBI, but some records pertaining to the seized documents are still in the premises in question. In these circumstances, the liquidator stated that it was not possible for him to surrender the premises.
3. Thereafter, when the company application came up for hearing before the Single Judge, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the landlord was prepared to make certain alternative premises available to enable the official liquidator to keep his books of account and documents. Accordingly, the official liquidator sought time to inspect the premises and by an order dated 24-4-2000 the hearing of the company application was adjourned. On 24-4-2000, the liquidator took inspection of the alternative premises which were offered by the applicant. These premises are situated on the forth floor of the same building. The liquidator has filed an affidavit dated 5-7-2000 setting out the reasons why he consid- , ered that the alternative premises are unsuitable. The alternative premises which were offered are part of an area which is under a tenancy agreement with a Company by the name of SMIFS Securities Ltd. and the period for which the premises were being offered, the area as well as the security arrangements had not been specified. Besides, it was stated that the space which was on the fourth floor had an approach by a narrow staircase, and the safes belonging to the liquidator in which sensitive documents have been stored cannot be shifted to the forth floor. There are fire proof safes and, according to the liquidator, they can only be situated on the ground floor where they are presently located. The liquidator also stated that it was erroneously assumed by the Landlord that the space is required only as a godown for keeping books of account. It was stated in the affidavit that the premises are a part of his office and the work of scrutiny of records for replying to the queries of various authorities including the RBI, CBI, Income-tax and Custodian, was being carried out therein. Besides the liquidator is also required to attend to the work in connection with pending matters before this Court and other courts.
4. A further affidavit has been filed by the liquidator on 29-11-2000 in which it has been stated that certain other premises which were in occupation of the Liquidator have been required to be handed over to the Bank of India as a result of an order dated 5-10-2000 passed in Judges summons No. 60 of 2000 in company petition No. 229 of 1992. The substance of these affidavits then, is that the premises are still required by the liquidator for dealing with the work of the Bank of Karad in liquidation.
5. The position in law in such matters is well settled in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna v. Official Liquidator AIR 1983 SC 1661. The test which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of its Judgment is whether the premises were required for the purpose of carrying out the winding up activities of the company in liquidation. The Judgment in Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna's case (supra) was subsequently referred to in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Nirmala R. Bafna/Keshi Shivax Combatta v. Khandesh Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. . In para 23 of its Judgment the Supreme Court was of the view that the fact 'that the official liquidator requires the portion of the flat (now in his actual possession) for storing the company books, is certainly relevant consideration'. In response to a submission made on behalf of the landlord to the effect that the official liquidator can easily store the books of account in his office or elsewhere, the Supreme Court held that even if it was so the liquidator could not be compelled to do so, as long as the reason given by him for continuing in possession is a relevant ,one.
6. In the circumstances of the present case, the liquidator has for sufficient reasons set out in the affidavits :filed in these proceedings on 8-12-2000, 5-7-2000 and 29-11-2000, set out his requirement of the premises during the period during which he is carrying out the liquidation of the Bank of Karad. The Court would have to take cognizance of the fact that the Bank of Karad is party to several cases pending in this Court including in the Special Court involving the conduct of the business of the Bank which is now in liquidation. These cases involve issues of sensitivity and importance from the point of view of the public interest as well.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the premises were initially required only for the purpose of storage and it was only subsequently after the liquidator surrendered certain other premises that he has started carrying out business from the premises in question. Reference was sought to be placed on the fact that the order under which certain other premises were handed back to the Bank of India was an order passed by Consent.
8. In the circumstances of the present case, the requirement of the official liquidator for utilizing the premises for storing the records of the Bank of Karad cannot be considered in isolation from the nature of the work which is being performed by the liquidator. The requirement for keeping the records in safe custody in this case, cannot be equated with the mere storing of books of account in other cases. In the present case, sensitive documents are required to be handled and stored by the official liquidator having regard to the involvement of the Bank of Karad in several pending cases before the Special Court. The premises are required for carrying on the work relating to the Bank of Karad. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant stated that the protection which is now available to banks or Financial Institutions has been substantially restricted under the new Rent Act. So far as this aspect is concerned, a suit for eviction which has been filed by the applicant in the small causes Court is already pending. It would be open to the applicant to pursue such remedies as are open under the provisions of the law.
9. In these circumstances, I am of the view that no case for the return of the premises is made out. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant would make efforts to make available to the liquidator alternative premises. It is always open to the applicant to do so and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the liquidator has not expressed any objection thereto, save and except, that it is for the liquidator, if any premises are forthcoming to determine their suitability with reference to his requirements. In these circumstances, the application is rejected.