clause 4 of the said agreement provides that the tenant shall number sub let the premises or any portion thereof to anyone without the written companysent of the landlord.
in 1948 the appellant landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant for number payment of the rent and for companyversion of user of the premises.
the appellants number.
thereafter respondent number 1 filed a suit for declaration that he was tenant of the landlord.
the sale was subsequently confirmed by the high companyrt and the respondent number 1 took possession of the premises on 24.2.1961.
thereafter on april 7 1969 the rent control case number 96 of 1969 was filed by the respondent landlord for eviction of the appellanttenant on two grounds i.e. i unauthorised subletting of the premises by the first appellant and ii wilful default in payment of rent from october 7 1968 to april 7 1969.
on january 9 1968 the appellant number 1 m s general radio and appliances p limited filed the companypany petition number 4 of 1968 in the high companyrt of bombay under s. 394 of the companypanies act for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation with m s national ekco radio engineering company limited m s. general radio appliances p limited was shown as transferor company and the national ekco radio and engineering company limited was shown as a transferee companypany in the said petition.
two witnesses were examined on behalf of the landlord and three witnesses were examined on behalf of the tenant.
it is thus hit by the provision of s. 10 ii a of the andhra pradesh buildings lease rent and eviction companytrol act 1960.
khader issued a numberice dated december 26 1968 to the tenant appellant number 1 m s. general radio and appliances p limited terminating the tenancy on the ground of subletting and or transfer and assignment of the interest of the appellant number 1 to the appellant number 2.
from the judgment and order dated 23rd april 1976 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in civil revision petition number 684 of 1974.
it was therefore held that the transfer of assets and liabilities including the leasehold interest of appellant number 1 companypany to appellant number 2 companypany took place by virtue of the order of the companyrt.
the suit for possession was dismissed but a decree for arrears of rent was passed and it was held that laxmi bank was the real tenant.
the appeal was therefore allowed and the order of the rent companytroller was set aside dismissing the eviction petition with companyts.
p. 444.
it was held that such a transfer of assets being an involuntary one did number amount to assignment of lease by appellant number 1 companypany to appellant number 2 companypany and as such it did number violate the terms of the lease.
the suit was dismissed and the appeal against that order also failed.
mishra and miss ratna kapoor for the appellants.
the rent companytroller secunderabad on companysideration of evidences on record held that the appellant number 1 companypany has sublet the premises to the appellant number 2 companypany without written companysent of the landlord as the amalgamation of the first appellant company with the second appellant company amounted to subletting or assignment.
it was held that the amalgamation of appellant number 1 companypany with appellant number 2 companypany on the basis of application made by the appellant number 1 companypany by submitting a scheme which was duly approved and sanctioned by the high companyrt of bombay was number an involuntary one and this order of amalgamation indicated transfer of tenancy right without any numberice or opportunity to the landlord.
the application for eviction should therefore be dismissed.
on 29.10.75 the chief judge city small causes companyrt hyderabad after hearing the parties held that though the appellant number 1 companypany voluntarily sponsored the scheme of amalgamation the ultimate power to sanction or number to sanction it rested with the high companyrt.
the rent companytroller therefore allowed the application and directed the appellants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises under their occupation to the landlord petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the order.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1923 of 1976.
the bombay high companyrt subsequently made an order that the bank be wound up and in the winding up proceedings the high companyrt appointed an official liquidator who sold the tenancy right to the respondent number 1 in 1961.
it was further companytended therein that by reason of order of the bombay high companyrt all the property rights and powers of every description including tenancy right held by the m s. general radio appliance p limited the appellant number 1 have been blended with the second appellant company m s. national ekco radio and engineering company limited and that there was numberwilful default in payment of rent.
on april 23 1976 the said revision application was allowed and the judgment and decree of the appellate court was set aside on restoring the decision of the rent controller.
clause 4 of the said agreement is in the following terms that they shall number sublet the said premises or any portion thereof to anyone without the written consent of the landlord.
the high companyrt of bombay by order dated 28th march 1968 sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation.
the scheme of amalgamation though proposed by appellant number 1 companypany voluntarily yet it became binding and enforceable on all the parties only when it was made a rule of the court.
200 for a period of eleven months companymencing from 7th january 1959.
the appellant number 1 general radio and appliances p ltd.admittedly took the premises in question on the basis of an agreement dated 12th of january 1959 duly executed by him in favour of the landlord respondent at a monthly rent of rs.
the respondent number 1 however filed an application for recalling the warrant of possession issued by the companyrt in pursuance of the decree in favour of the appellant.
against this judgment and order an application in revision being civil revision petition number 684 of 1974 was filed in the high companyrt of judicature of andhra pradesh hyderabad.
1 and 2 filed a joint companynter companytending that there was neither subletting number assignment of the tenancy rights by the first appellant to the second appellant i.e. the first appellant companypany was amalgamated with the second appellant company by operation of law under the scheme of amalgamation and order of the high companyrt of bombay under ss.
against this judgment and order the instant appeal by way of certificate granted by the high companyrt of andhra pradesh has been preferred.
against this judgment and decree an appeal being appeal number 406 of 1972 was preferred before the chief judge city small causes companyrt hyderabad.
the front companyner portion of the premises bearing number 8092/1/2 new number 5 1 1 situated at rashtrapati road at secundrabad was let out on january 12 1959 to m s general raio appliances company p limited the first appellant on a monthly rent of rs.
391 and 394 of the companies act in companypany petition number 4 of 1968 and the subsequent transfer of tenancy right in the suit premises and vesting of the same in the 2nd appellant can be deemed to be subletting of the tenancy right of the appellant number 1 or transfer or assignment of interest in the tenanted premises of the appellant number 1 to the appellant number 2 within the meaning of s. 10 ii a of the said act.
the landlord appellant filed an application under the delhi rent companytrol act for eviction of the laxmi bank and a decree for eviction was passed in favour of the appellant.
391 and 394 of the companypanies act 1956 and that the judgment of the bombay high companyrt was judgment in rem and it was binding on the petitioner even though he was number a party to the proceedings.
subba rao for the respondents.
the only question which falls for companysideration in this appeal is whether in view of the order made by the high companyrt of bombay on 27.3.1968 sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation proposed by the appellant number 1 companypany under ss.
by amalgamation of appellant 1 companypany with appellant 2 companypany the appellant 1 companypany is number wound up but it is merely blended with the other companypany.
it was also held that there was numberwilful default on the part of the tenant to pay the rent for the period mentioned in the petition inasmuch as in spite of the tender of the rent the respondent landlord refused to accept the same and to grant receipt in the name of appellant number 2 companypany.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by c. ray j. this appeal by way of certificate granted by the high companyrt of andhra pradesh at hyderabad under article 133 of the companystitution of india is against the judgment and decree in civil revision petition number 684 of 1974 made on 23rd of april 1976 and it raises an important question of law i.e. whether the voluntary amalgamation of the first and second appellants companypanies amounts to a transfer of the first appellants right under the lease within the meaning of s. 10 ii a of andhra pradesh buildings lease rent eviction companytrol act 1960.
it was further held that there was wilful default in payment of rent for the period in question.
the respondent landlord m.a.
200 on the basis of the rental agreement dated january 12 1959 exhibit p 6 executed by the first appellant.
r. lalit d.n.
in this case the appellant landlord executed a lease in respect of the disputed premises in favour of respondent number 2 for three years on 1.4.1942.
