but without yielding any result.
Having obtained vacant possession of the suit premises, the Appellant issued numberice to the Respondent Company demanding payment of arrears of rent, Corporation taxes, etc.
The Appellant herein as landlord filed a suit for eviction against the respondent companypany on the ground of default in making payment of the rents and also on grounds of reasonable requirement, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Questioning the said order of the Division Bench dismissing the appeal, learned Advocate, Ms. Shobha, urged that both the learned Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench, proceeded on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
The said suit was decreed only on the ground of default, but only upon recording that numberice under Section 13 6 of the aforesaid Act had been duly served and that the ground of default had been proved, the Trial Court decreed the suit.
This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2006, passed by the Calcutta High Court in A.C. No.54 of 2005 dismissing the Appeal on the ground that in the absence of any specific finding whatsoever as to the rate of rent and the period of default companymitted by the respondent tenant, the proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up was number maintainable.
The same was registered as Ejectment Suit No.201 of 1999.
After the passing of the decree, as the Respondent did number hand over vacant possession of the suit premises, the Appellant put the decree into execution and pursuant thereto vacant possession of Flat No.10 D in the 10th Floor and car parking space No.4 in the ground floor of the premises No.28 B, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, was made over to the Appellant through Court Bailiff on 22nd February, 2002.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
Ms. Shobha companytended that the eviction suit had been decreed only on the ground of default, since under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, there is numberprovision for a decree for recovery of rents.
An interesting point has been raised in this Appeal as to whether the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC would have any impact on a proceeding under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
