PRAHLADBHAI RSJARAM MEHTA Vs. POPATBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very substantial and significant question that arises for consideration and determination is whether a conviction and eviction of a serviceoccupier under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, withholding company's premises after termination of employment, by any reason, is competent and maintainable or not in view of the protection and provision of Sec. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ?

(2.) The appellant herein - original complainant who was working as Deputy Manager in "New Shorrock Mills", a unit of Mafatlal Industries Limited ('the company' for short) had filed Criminal Case No. 6545 of 1988, on 18-10-1988, in the Court of the learned Chief J. M. F. C., Nadiad, inter alia, contending, that respondent No. 1-original accused has wrongfully withheld possession of Room No. 30 in New Shorrock Nagar bearing Municipal Census No. 5/947 situated on Kapadvanj Road, Nadiad, the property of the company ('the disputed property' for short), after his retirement from the employment of the company.

(3.) According to the complainant's case, the disputed room was given to the accused on account of the fact that he being in service of the company at that time. The accused was given the disputed room in a chawl of company for his use and occupation, on the leave and licence basis. One of the conditions of the said leave and licence agreement between the company and the accused, was that the accused shall not be entitled to occupy the disputed room after determination of his service. Thus, it is alleged by the complainant that the accused was entitled to keep the disputed room, as long as, he was in service of the company and as per the terms and conditions of the licence agreement between the company and the empolyeeaccused, the company is entitled to the possession from him on severence of the relationship of master and servant. The accused retired from the service of the company with effect from 1-9-1984 receiving all the retiral benefits from the company. Therefore, the accused was bound to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed room to the company as he was no more in service of the company and he has obtained big bungalow, in Punit Park Society, Nadiad. The accused was also paid all dues and retirement benefits in accordance with law. However, inspite of repeated requests and demands made by and on behalf of the company, the accused failed to hand over possession and continued to wrongfully and unlawfully occupy and possess the disputed room. Therefore, the case of the complainant is that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Companies Act' for short).