{"id":237670,"date":"1982-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982"},"modified":"2016-09-01T22:28:11","modified_gmt":"2016-09-01T16:58:11","slug":"atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982","title":{"rendered":"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And … on 13 October, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And … on 13 October, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 Bom 122<\/div>\n
Author: Chandurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Chandurkar, Lentin<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Chandurkar, J. <\/p>\n
 1. The  appellant company is a sole proprietary concern of one Ashok Vadilal Shah who clams to be a  tenant to room No. 23B,  Lalsing Mansing Building  at Lohar Chawl, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises”).  Vadilal Shah and his  another son Ajitlala Shah  were adjudicated insolvents by an order dated 21st January, 1975.  An appeal was filed against the order of adjudication by both  the insolvents.  During  the pendency of the appeal, Vadilal Shsh died on 8th July,  1975.  On 9th March 1978, Ajitlal Vadilal Shah withdrew the appeal and the appeal was dismissed for want for prosecution.  The present proceeding arose Assignee for direction  seeking an order for  sale of the insolvent business known as Messrs. Vadilal R. Shah as Official Assignee going concern with furniture, fixtures, etc., together with goodwill and tenancy rights of the business premises, which  are the said premises, as well as another room No. 24  with which we are not concerned in this appeal.  An order  of attachment was also levied by the Sheriff of Bombay in respect of the suit premises pursuant to the order  of the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No. 9512 of 1973,  which was filed by the two attaching creditors. Mr. Dhotwala and Mrs. Dhotiwala.  The Official Assignee had  also sought an order directing the withdrawal of the said attachment.  The claim of Ashok Vailal Shah was that the  tenancy or the  suit  premises was transferred in his favour by the landlord with the consent of Vadilal on 31st march, 1973 and the  Official Assignee had sought an order for setting aside the alleged transfer.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The proceeding before the landed Single Judge were  contested only by Ashok Vadilal, though the report of the Official Assignee was served on the owner as well as on the petitioner creditors  and Ajit Vadilal Shah.  It is not in dispute that by Official Assignee notice dated 16th December, 1970.  the tenancy in respect of the suit premises was terminated with effect from the end of the tenancy month of January. 1971. It was, however Official Assignee matter of dispute as to whether the tenancy was individually held by Vadilal personally or by the partnership firm of Messrs. Vadilal Rs. Shah. The landlord had  also filed Official Assignee suit for ejectment, being suit No. 1014\/5750 of 1971 in the Court of Small  Causes at Bombay.  According to the appellant, during the pendency of this suit, deceased Vadilal had given his consent to the landlord to make the appellant company as his tenant and the landlord had conferred Official Assignee direct tenancy upon the appellant company with effect from  1st April, 1975. It may be  pointed out at this  stage that while before  the Official Assignee the surviving partner of Messrs. Vadilal R.  Shah, namely, the insolvent Ajitlal Vaidlal Shah had  made as statement  that on  31st  March 1973.  the partnership   business of Messrs. Vadilal R. Shah had  transferred the  partnership business  in favour of the appeal company along with the tenancy rights, goodwill, fixtures, furniture, etc.  for consideration  of Rs. 5,000\/-  in the proceeding before the  learned  single Judge, Official Assignee writing alleged to have been given by deceased  Vadilal the  ejectment  suit was  produced,  by which Vadilal purported to given  his consent  to the landlord to transfer the tenancy in favour of the appellant company, who, it is alleged, was already in occupation of the suit premises on leave and licence basis since  1972.  On the basis of this document, the main point which was argued before the learned single  Judge was  that Vadilal Shah was Official Assignee statutory tenant on the date of the passing of the order of adjudication  and hence, no tenancy right could passed to the Official Assignee and reliance was passed on as decision of this courting In respondent Pergrino  Rodrigues, (1944) 46 Bom LR 916: (AIR 1945 Bom 173). In  this decision, it was laid down that the statutory tenancy to which an insolvent becomes  entitled under the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939, is not his property within the meaning of Section 62 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909.  and  does not vest in the  Official Assignee by the adjudication order.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The learned single Judge at  the outset  directed  his attention  to the question  as to whether there was in fact any  surrender of the suit premises by the deceased  insolvent  Vadilal Shah  and whether there  was a creation of direct  tenancy in favour of the appellant company from  1st April, 1975.  While dealing with this question, the learned Judge  referred to the fact  that on the very day on which  a direct tenancy is alleged to have been created  in favour of the appellant company, a partnership deed had come to be executed on a stamped paper of Rs. 100\/-  by which a new partnership  was constituted considering of Vadilal and his sons Ajitlal Vadilal to continue the business of the partnership firm which had  already four partners out of High whom two had retried.  The learned  Judge held  that it was impossible that on the day on  which the new partnership business in the same name and  style  and in the  same premises, namely, High suit premises, there  would be surrender  of valuable tenancy rights in favour of the landlord.  The  learned Judge also  considered the fact Ajitlal  had initially put up a story that the entire going concern of Messrs. Vadilal Shah  together  with the tenancy  right had been transferred in favour of Ashok Vadilal Shah with effect form 31st  March, 1973  and that it was only on the  next date of  his examination that  it was  stated that there was no documents evidencing the alleged transfer and subsequently the story of a tenancy being created with effect from  1st April  1975  was put  up.  The learned  Judge took the view   that the  declaration said to  have been made by the deceased in the Small Causes Court was brought about in collusion with the landlord and he took the view that the story of creation of tenancy was sham and bogus, Having regard to this finding, the learned Judge took  the view that   on the date  on the commencement of the insolvency proceeding or on the date of the order of adjudication.  Vadilal and Aitlal were contesting the ejectment suit and  the  Official Assignee and  a right of defend  the ejectment suit which related to the business premises of the insolvent and further if the right to  defend the ejectment was crippled and destroyed  by the insolvent surrendering the possession of his premises.  the creditors would be deprived  of the valuable property which would  otherwise be available for their benefit.  The learned Judge further took the view  that it could not be said that the tenancy right  as they  existed  on the day  to the order of ejectment  were not  property within the meaning of Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.  The learned Judge further  took the view that the landlord who has notice of the order of adjudication, could not  be permitted to divest the  Official Assignee in whom the property had   vested by operation of law.  the learned  Judge  referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadialal v.  Prashram, , in which the Supreme Court has observed that it cannot be assumed that with the determination of the tenancy the estate of the tenant  must  necessarily disappear and the statute can only preserve his  status up irremovability and not  the  estate he had  in the premises in his occupation.  Having  regard to those observations, the learned Judge  came to  to the conclusion that the  attachment order   by the City Civil Court after the order of adjudication  was illegal and further that was no  transfer in favour of the appellant on 31st March, 1973,  as alleged.  He further  held   that  the alleged declaration dated 26th March, 1975, was  sham and bogus  and consequently directed the Official Assignee to take possession of the business premises and thereafter to proceed with the  sale  of the insolvent business known as Messrs. Vadilal R. Shah as a going concern together with the  furniture and fixtures, etc.  along with the goodwill and tenancy rights  of the suit premises as incidental thereto either by public auction or private treaty as the  Official Assignee may deem fit  and proper. This order is now  challenged by the appellant company in this  appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Mr.  Romer, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, who had appeared before the learned  single Judge, said that the only  question which was  argued before  the learned single Judge was that there are no right of a statutory  tenant  which could be said to vest in  the Official Assignee and the learned Counsel made a grievance before us  that the other  question  decided  by the learned single Judge  regarding the alleged transfer before 31st March, 1973 or the  transfer of tenancy  dated 1st April, 1975, were  never argued before the learned single Judge and he was really not heard on those points at all.  Assuming for a moment that the learned Counsel  appearing for the  appellant is right  that he was not heard on these question, it is difficult for us to say that the question decided by the learned  single Judge were  wholly irrelevant for the purpose  of decision of the matter  before him.  The claim of the appeal company was based on an alleged transfer of tenancy directly in favour of the Ashok Vadilal with effect  from 1st April 75  by the landlord. The validity of this claim  had to be adjudicated upon because it is only if this  claim could be substantiated by the appellant that the further question  as to whether  he had any right  of which he was  being deprived by the Official Assignee or the question with regard to the effect of such a transfer as alleged would  arise.  We have, therefore, heard Mr. Romer  at considerable  length on the findings which, according to the learned  counsel, were recorded by  the learned  single Judge  without hearing him.\n<\/p>\n
       5.  The first hurdle in  the way of the appellant is the finding recorded by the leaned single Judge  that the story of any transfer in his favour of the tenancy directly by the landlord is a sham and a bogus one. It may be mentioned that the story of the alleged  transfer of the entire running business  of the company with effect from 31st March 1973,  which was given out before the Official Assignee by Ajitlal, has not been supported before  us by  the learned  counsel for the appellant. Once again, the learned counsel  has placed  reliance on the writing which purports to be on a stamped paper of Rs. 3.50 (Ex. B) dated 26th March  1975.  It is  recited in this  documents , which  is signed by deceased Vadilal, that  a suit has been filed against Vadilal for  recovery of possession  of  room No. B 23 and B 24 on the first floor of  Lalsing Mansing  Building and that Vadilal had given room No. B 23  to Messrs Atlas Trading C. and room No. B 24 to Shri Dayal Gianchand undernomall on leave and  licence as the  respective  licenses  were in  occupation of the  respective rooms since 1972.  It is recited that their licence were subsisted on 1st November 1973 and they were entitled to occupation and protection  and Vadilal, therefore,  did not desire to contest the suit “as it is of no benefit”. The  material sentence which is important is  follows:–\n<\/p>\n
         “I therefore  hereby  given may consent to the  respective occupant  being accepted by the plaintiff as their direct tenant and I  be relieved of liability  of future rents”.\n<\/p>\n
 This  declaration has been rejected by the learned single Judge as being as documents which has been brought about in collusion with the  landlord.\n<\/p>\n
       6.  Now, there are circumstance on record  which  throw a serious doubt  on the genuineness  of this documents.  It is no  doubt true  that on the basis of  this statement made by Vadilal, the appellant was entitled  to contend that the appellant was a direct tender of the premises  in question, but the validity of this contention would depend on whether this documents can  be accepted  as  genuine.  Admittedly there is no  other evidence with  regard to the  grant of  leave and licence in 1972.  There is ample  material on record to show that there  averment could not be accepted  as  true.  The partnership firm of  Messrs. Vadilal R. Shah originally  consisted of four  partners, two of them  being father and son, namely  Vadilal and Ajitlal  and  the two others were Punamchand Shah and Mahendrakumar  Shah.  These two partners  retired with effect from 1st April 1975  and a separated retirement deed  was executed.  The two remaining partners continued the business  of the firm under a new documents of partnership (Ex. A) with specifically provides that the original partnership business was to  be continued with effect from 1st  April 1975 by the new partnership firm and that the  partnership  business  was and would be carried on at 6, Lalji Mansing Buildings, 1st  floor,  Lohar Street.  The books  of account of the partnership  firm  were also to be  kept in the same premises.  This documents, therefore, shows that there  was a  continuing business of the partnership firm  at the suit premises not only after 1st April  1975 but even prior to that. Now. if this was so, it is difficult to accept the story of a part of the premises having been granted on leave and licence basis  to the appellant company and the remaining premises to Dayal Gianchand.  Similarly the bringing about of a new partnership  deed to evidence a partnership, which  was  to continue  the business even after  1st April 1975 in the same premises, would be wholly inconsistent with the story that the two licensees should  be  granted direct tenancies by the landlord.  If this was accepted, it would mean that the business of the firm Messrs Vadilal R.  Shah had cased with effect from 1st April  1975  which could  be inconsistent with the conduct of the two partners in bringing about a new partnership  deed  in order to continue the business of the old partnership.\n<\/p>\n
       7.  Another  important circumstance which adversely affects the story that the declaration of 26th March 1975 is a genuine  declaration  is that an attachment was levied on 27th March 1975  in the suit filed by  Mr. Dhotiwala and Mrs. Dhotiwala against  the partnership  firm in the City Civil Court.  If the appellant was really in possession of the suit premises  as a direct tenant. then the appeal would have  taken  immediate steps to have this  attachment  lifted. However,  no such  step  were taken by the appellant and the attachment continued till it was lifted consequent upon  the order of the learned single Judge which is  impugned in this   appeal. It is clear that the dated 26th March 1975, which  is chosen as the date on  which  the tenancy was made,  is the  day prior  to the day  on which  the attachment was levied.  The  only irresistible inference that can be drawn from the facts as they appear on record is that the  alleged declaration on 25th March 1975  is a bogus documents and with it the appellant was a  direct tenant of the landlord with  effect from  1st April 1975.\n<\/p>\n
         8.  Once the story of the appellant that it was a tenant of the premises is rejected, appellant  does not have any locus standi in these proceedings.  There was no  question of any right of the appellant being adversely  affected by any steps  taken by the Official Assignee.\n<\/p>\n
         9.  Strictly speaking, this is sufficient to dispose of the appeal.  However, since  the question as to the nature of the rights of a statutory  tenant has been argued before us by Mr. Romer, we shall briefly deal with that question.\n<\/p>\n
         10. We have  already referred to the decision of this Court in Rodrigues’ case (AIR 1945 Bom 173). Thereafter in the light of the provisions in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging  House Rates Control  Act, 1947,  (hereafter referred to as the “Bombay Rent Act)” the nature of the  rights of a statutory  tenant, that is, a contractual tenant whose lease has been terminated but whose possession is protected  by the provision of the Bombay Rent Act has been the subject-matter  of some decision  of the Supreme Court.  In the well-known decision in Anand Nivas (P) Ltd. v. Anandji,<\/a>  ,  the majority view in the judgment of Shah, J. puts the position thus (at  p. 422):\n<\/p>\n
         “A person remaining in occupation of the premises let to hi  after the determination of or expiry of the period of the tenancy is commonly though not accurately, called “a statutory  tenant”.  Such a person is not a tenant at all: he has no estate or interest in  the premises occupied by him.  He has  merely  the protection of the statute in that he cannot be returned out so  long as he pays the standard rent and permitted increased, if any, and performs the other conditions of the tenancy. His  right to remain in possession after  the determination of the contractual tenancy is persons;   it is not capable  of  being transferred or assigned,   and devolves on his death  only in the  manner provided by the statute.  The right  of a lease from a landlord on the  other hand is an  estate or interest in the premises and in the absence of a contract to the contrary is transferable and the premises  may be sublet by him.  But with  the determination of the lease, unless the tenant acquires the right of a tenant  holding over by  acceptance of rent of by assent to his continuing in possession by the landlord, the  terms and conditions of the lease are  extinguished,  and the right of such a person remaining in possession are governed by the statute alone, Section 12(1) of the  Act merely recognises his right to remain in possession so long as he pays or is ready and willing to pay the  standard rent and  permitted increases and performs the other conditions of tenancy, but not the right to enforce the terms  and conditions of the original  tenancy  after it is determined”. Thus  in the case of Anand Nivas (P) Ltd. , it was held  a statutory  tenant has no estate or interest in the premises  occupied by  him.  It  is relaying on this decision that Mr. Romer has  contended that if Vadilal has no interest or estate in the premises, there was nothing which would  vest in the Official Assignee.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Now, in Damadilal v. Parashram,<\/a> , which was a case arising under the provisions  of the  Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 the nature of the rights of a statutory tenant in the light of the right of tenant governed by the Rent Restriction Act in England was considerated.  In paragraph 11 of the judgment, it  was observed as followed                                                           (Para 11):–\n<\/p>\n
         “We find it difficult to  appreciate how  in  this  country we can proceed on the basis  that a tenant whose contractual tenancy has  determined but who is protected against  eviction  by the statute, has no right  of property but only  a personal right to remain in occupation, without  ascertaining what his right are under the  statute.  The concept of a statutory tenant having  no  estate  or property in the premises which he  occupies is derived form  the provisions of the English Rent Acts.  But it is  not clear how it can  be assumed  that the  position  is the   same in this country without any reference  to the  provisions of the relevant statue. Tenancy has its origin in contract.  There is no dispute that  a contractual tenant has an  estate or property in the subject-matter of the tenancy. and heritability  is an  incident of the tenancy.  It cannot be assumed, however, that with the determination of the tenancy  the estate must necessarily disappear  and the  statute can only  preserve his statute of irremovability and not  the estate he had  in the premises in his occupation.  It is  not possible to claim  that the ‘sanctity’ of  contract  cannot be touched by legislation. It is  therefore necessary to examine the provisions of   the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 to find out whether the respondent predecessors-in-interest  retained a heritable interest in the disputed premised even after the termination of their tenancy”.\n<\/p>\n
 However, before  making the above observations.  the Supreme Court referred to the decision  in the case of Anand Nivas (P) Ltd.  and  in the case of Jagdish Chandra Chatterjee v.Sri Kishna, , and observed that these   decision proceeded  on the   basis that the tenant  whose tenancy has been terminated, described as a statutory tenant, has no estate or interest in the premise but only  a personal right to remain in occupation.  It was  then observed  as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
          “It would seem as if there  is a distinct category  of tenant called statutory tenant having  separate and fixed incident of tenancy.  The terms ‘statute tenancy’ is   borrowed from the English Rent Act.  This may  be a convenient expression for referring to a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated and who would  be  liable to be evicted but for the  protecting statute, but courts in this  country have  sometime borrowed along with the  expression certain  notices regarding such tenancy from the decision of the English courts.  In out opinions it has  to be ascertained how  for these notice are reconcilable with the  provisions of the statute  under consideration  in any particular  case”.\n<\/p>\n
  The Supreme Court  thus took the view that the right of the statutory tenant have to be determined  in the light of the relevant statutory provisions and with  regard to the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, it was  pointed out that the incident of tenancy of the tenant defined in Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation  Control Act, 1961, and a contractual tenancy must be  the same unless any provisions of the  Act conveyed a contrary intention  and  it  was expressly  held  that  under  the Madhya  Pradesh  Accommodation  Control Act, the tenant  retain an interest in the premises and not merely a personal right of occupation.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Prior to the decision in Damadilal’s case , in another decision in Jai Singh Murarji v. Sovani (P) Ltd,<\/a>  , the Supreme Court was concerned with  construction of Section 15(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and it was held   in that case that the  word “tenant” in Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act meant a contractual tenant and not a statutory tenant and Section 15(2) protects only sub-leases  or assignment or transfer by the tenant but does not effect subsequent assignment, or transfers  by assignees of transferees,.  Thus there was some conflicts to whether the right of a tenant was only a personal right  to possession protected by statute  or whether that right also include an interest or estate  in the tenancy of the premises.  This apparent conflict was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Vasant v. Dikkaya, ,  to which one of us (Lentin J) was a party.  I paragraph   12 of the judgment referring to the apparently divergent views,  it was  observed as  followed (at p. 344):–\n<\/p>\n
           “It  is difficult to escape  the conclusion that the view expressed in Anand Nivas case  as to the statutory tenant basically not having any interest, estate or property  in the demised premises is irreconcilable with the view in Damadiala’s case  that heritability  is the incidence of the tenancy and that a statutory tenant does not  asses to hold such  an estate, interest and property  therein as such  ordinary incidence of tenancy unless the statute protecting  his such possession provides to the  contrary”.\n<\/p>\n
 While  proceeding to consider whether there is any infirmity in the decision in the case of Anand Nivas  the Division Bench in paragraph 14 observed as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
        \"On this point  in initial  presumption as to the subsisting    incidence of the tenancy, we shall have  to follow  the ratio of Damadilal's case  in preference  to the decision in Anand Nivas case and shall have  to proceed on the assumption  that  statutory tenant does  ordinarily possess transferable interest in his tenancy.  We shall  have to find out  from the  provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, if anything, therefore in has  the effect of destroying it\". \n\n \n\n The Division Bench  then considered the provisions  of Section 12(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, as construed in the Anand Nivas case  and then  observed as follows in paragraph 17:-- \n\n             \"This decision as to the scope of  Section 12(1) of the Bombay Rent Act  based on its wording and the context,  obviously runs   counter  to the assumed ordinary incidence of transferability of the statutory  tenancy.  This, in other  words, is a clear  provisions indication legislative intent to the contrary to rob the tenancy  of this attribute or incidence in terms of the  requirement of the ratio of Damadilal's case . Looking  at from this point of view there is no conflict in decision of these two cases on this point.  Ratio of Anand Nivas case   holds good and binding\". \n\n \n\n Thus  the Division Bench  in Vasant v. Dikkaya  has on an analysis  of the decision in Anand Nivas  and Damadilal's   cases come to the conclusion that there is no conflict between  those decision and  that the ratio of Anand Nivas case was  still good and  binding. \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
             13.  Mr. Romer has invited out attention to an order of the Supreme Court dismissing of a petition for special leave against a decision of this Court arising out of   the Bombay Rent Act.  That  order of the Supreme Court is reported in Ganapati v. Waman .  We has sent for the original judgment to the learned single Judge against which the special leave petition was made  before the Supreme Court.  That decision is in Ganapati v. Waman,  Special  Civil application No. 2806 of 1976  dated 18th  November 1980. by Kanade J.  The question which fell for decision  before the learned single Judge (Kanade J.) was  whether after the termination of a contractual  tenancy  by a notice received from the landlord, it is permissible for the tenant to assign or transfer the tenancy  rights.  The learned Judge referred to the  decision in Vasant v. Dikkaya, ,  and observed that it was  held in that case that “though ordinarily a statutory tenant  is assumed   to possess a transferable  interest in the tenancy   in terms of the ratio in Damadilal’s case , Section 12(1) 13, 14 and 15 of the  Bombay  Rent Act,  as  interpreted earlier in Anand Nivas case , indicate  legislative intent to the  contrary  and the statutory  tenancy  thereunder not  to be  so transferable. The Division Bench  decision  being binding on the  learned  Judge, he held   that the point raised, therefore, did not survive,  Now,  when special leave petitioner was filed from this decision   and it was  rejected, it must  necessarily mean  that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Vasant v. Dikkaya, which had held that the ratio of the decision in Anand  Nivas case was not affected by the decision in Damadiala’s  case, must be held  to have  been approved by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
       14.   Now,  it is difficult for us  to appreciate how this position of law  is of any assistance to the appellant.  So far  as the  appellant is concerned,  he is not claiming  directly  though  Vadiala. His  claim is that he was  granted  a tenancy directly form Vadialal, Vadilal was incompetent to pass on any rights to the appellant company because  the right of Vadilal  were only rights to  occupation protected  by the statute.  Secondly, the observations of another Division Bench of this Court in Zarina Umer v. Sati Lalchand , indicate that  tenancy of a monthly tenant who has  been adjudicated an insolvent and which is not alienable under Section  15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act cannot be  regarded as  property of the insolvent which must leave  in the Official Assignee under Section 17 of the  Presidency-towns Insolvency.  Act, 1909.  The Division Bench has  further observed in that case “…….. we  find it  impossible to hold  that  such a tenancy dissociated from a going business can be regarded as property which must  vest in the Official Assignee. These are the  observations relied upon  by Mr. Makhija  for contending that what  is taken to have been vested  in the  Official Assignee is not  merely a right of occupation but the entire business assets of the partnership firm consisting of  the two partners and the right  of occupation  but the entire business assets of the partnership firm consisting of the two partnership  firm consisting of the   two partners and the right of occupation are  intrinsically and closely connected  with the business itself.  Therefore, it is  the whole  bundle of  rights in the running business  including the right   of occupation which  must be  taken to have  vested in  the Official Assignee.\n<\/p>\n
       15.  In the view which  we have  taken, we find no infirmity in the order appealed  against.  The appeal must, therefore, fail and  is dismissed.  However, we make no order as to costs. The  operation of the order is stayed  for two weeks, Undertaking given on 24th April 1979 to continue until further orders.\n<\/p>\n
 16. Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And … on 13 October, 1982 Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 Bom 122 Author: Chandurkar Bench: Chandurkar, Lentin JUDGMENT Chandurkar, J. 1. The appellant company is a sole proprietary concern of one Ashok Vadilal Shah who clams to be a tenant to room No. 23B, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237670","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAtlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-01T16:58:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And … on 13 October, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-01T16:58:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982\"},\"wordCount\":4562,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982\",\"name\":\"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-01T16:58:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And … on 13 October, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-01T16:58:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And … on 13 October, 1982","datePublished":"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-01T16:58:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982"},"wordCount":4562,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982","name":"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-01T16:58:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atlas-trading-co-vs-official-assignee-of-bombay-and-on-13-october-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And … on 13 October, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237670","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237670"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237670\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}