Hira Lal & Sons vs Mr Anish Niranajan Nanavaty

Hira Lal & Sons ...Appellant

Versus

Anish Niranajan Nanavaty ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Chirag Kher and Mr. Shashank Pandey, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal and Ms. Charu Bansal, Advocates.

ORDER

14.12.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel for the Respondent-Resolution Professional. This Appeal has been

filed against order dated 11.10.2023 by which the Adjudicating Authority had

decided I.A. No. 861 of 2022. The Appellant, who claim to be land lord of the

premises which is in occupation of the Corporate Debtor has filed application

I.A. No. 861 of 2022 praying for following reliefs:

"V. RELIEFS SOUGHT

In view of the facts mentioned above, the Applicant respectfully Prays for the following reliefs:

A. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Resolution Professional of RCIL to forthwith vacate the Premises bearing private no. 27, a part of Municipal Corporation House No. 100 admeasuring 34,375 sq. ft. situated at Baghpat Road, Maliyana, Meerut - 250002 -2-

(U.P.) and handover Peaceful Possession of the same to the Applicant.

B. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Resolution Professional of RCIL India Limited to treat the Sum of Rs. 61,23,646/- (Rupees Sixty-One Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty Six Only) being the Pending License Fees due and payable to the Applicant from the CIRP Commencement Date up to 1 December 2021, as CIRP costs and make payment of the same to the Applicant with immediate effect.

C. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Resolution Professional to treat all future License Fees for the Promises as CIRP Costs and make Payment of the same on a timely basis, without any delay, till such time as the Premises are handed over to the Applicant.

D. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Resolution Professional of RCIL to rectify the admitted Claim Amount of the Applicant to a Sum of 45,03,361/- (Rupees Forty-Five Lakhs Three Thousand Three Hundred Sixty One Only) in accordance with the Applicant's Claim Form Dated 12 October 2019.

E. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare that RCIL, is liable to compensate the Applicant for the damage suffered to the Premises on account of its continuous non-use for a period of more than two years and appoint a suitable third party expert in order to quantify the cost of restoring the Premises back to its original condition.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1603 of 2023 -3-

F. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Resolution Professional to treat the cost of repairing the Premises in order to restore it back to its original condition as CIRP costs and make payment of the same to the Applicant with immediate effect.

G. Pending the final hearing and disposal of this Application, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the RP to carry out joint inspection of the Premises with the Applicant to ascertain the extent of damage suffered by the Premises on account of its continuous non-use for a period of more than two years.

H. For interim/ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (A) - (G).

I. For such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present Case.

J. For Costs."

2. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has accepted the

claim of rent of Rs.1,09,448/- per month with agreed increase of 5% thereto

as per the terms of the Agreement dated 15.05.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that

the market rate of the premises is Rs.1,71,875/- and the Adjudicating

Authority ought to have accepted the same. He has also referred to email

communication from employee of the Corporate Debtor wherein amount

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1603 of 2023 -4-

claimed was admitted. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that

the Appellant has also field claim in Form B for an amount of Rs.45,03,361/-

which was not fully admitted by the Resolution Professional on the ground

that no invoices have been received after April, 2018. Learned counsel for the

Appellant submits that the agreement came to an end in April, 2018, hence,

there was no question of issuing invoices thereafter and he has claimed

amount as damages for occupation.

4. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that in so far

as order of the Adjudicating Authority accepting rent of Rs.1,09,448/- per

month with increase of 5% thereto is concerned, it was the agreed rent as per

the Agreement and no exception can be taken to the said order. It is submitted

that the Resolution Plan is under consideration for approval and reserved for

orders. The amount as accepted by the Adjudicating Authority shall be paid.

In so far as claim of the Appellant in Form B, it is submitted that no invoices

having been submitted, the Resolution Professional has admitted the claim

upto the extent invoices were received.

5. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the

record.

6. In so far as the fixation of rent amount at Rs.1,09,448/- per month with

5% increase, it was decided in terms of the agreement and we see no ground

to interfere with the said decision and the claim of the amount of

Rs.1,71,875/- on the basis of the market value of the premises in question,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1603 of 2023 -5-

the Corporate Debtor being in CIRP and the Corporate Debtor continuing being

in occupation of the premises, the direction of the Adjudicating Authority to

determine the rent as per the Agreement cannot be faulted. We, however, of

the view that due to mere fact that no invoices were issued by the Appellant

after April, 2018, the claim could not have been reduced, now the Adjudicating

Authority has itself found the amount to Rs.1,09,448/- per month, the claim

for the months in which Corporate Debtor was in occupation of the premises

may be determined. In view of the order of the Adjudicating Authority the

claim filed by the Appellant in Form B may be admitted by the Resolution

Professional and the Resolution Professional shall modify the claim as per the

direction of the Adjudicating Authority in Clause (b), Para 4 of the impugned

order.

7. In view of the above, we partly allow the appeal to the extent that the

claim in Form B is to be modified accordingly. Rest of the impugned order is

affirmed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1603 of 2023