The court considered a claim for non-residential rent that was incurred by debtor postpetition. Lessor asserted that, under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3), its claim for rent must be paid immediately. However, trustee claimed that, as the estate did not have sufficient liquid assets at that time to pay all administrative claims, paying lessor's claim would give that claim improper superpriority over other administrative claims. The court determined that such priority was not supported by the statute, its legislative history, or case authority, and held that § 365(d)(3) claims do not have superpriority status over other 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1) administrative claims. However, the court held that, when immediate payment of a § 365(d)(3) claim has been properly sought, full payment must be made unless the trustee establishes a "substantial doubt" that there will ultimately be sufficient funds available to pay all administrative expenses. The court concluded that trustee had not made such a showing in the case before the court.