JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated April 28, 1995 by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.1222 of 1995. The appellant had joined the services of M/s. Rallis India Ltd. on March 10, 1965. He had occupied a residential flat at Morena No.11. M. C. Dhanuka Road, Bombay. He resigned on July 15, 1986. The Rallis India Ltd., the second respondent (the Company, hereinafter), initiated proceedings in January, 1987 against the appellant under S.408, I.P.C. and S.630 of the Companies Act for the continued occupation of the appellant in the said flat. The Magistrate, by his order dated October 12, 1994, found the appellant guilty of offence under S.630 of the Companies Act and directed restitution of the flat. On appeal, the Sessions Judge partly allowed it by his judgment dated March 20, 1995, altering the sentence while confirming the conviction. The High Court confirmed the same by the impugned order.

3. The primary question in this case is whether the conviction under S.630 of the Companies Act sustainable ? We have read the counsel on both sides. Pending criminal proceedings, the Company laid L.E. and C. Suit Nos.104/126 of 1989 in Small Cause Court, Bombay for eviction of the appellant. The case set out in the plaint and evidence adduced in proof of the issues framed therein was that the Company had tenancy rights in the flat. Consequent upon joining the service, the appellant was inducted into possession. On his resignation and acceptance thereof, he ceased to be an employee of the Company. Consequently, the appellant is enjoined to deliver possession of the premises to the Company but he failed to do so.

4. The case set up by the appellant and evidence adduced in proof thereof was that there is no jural relationship between the appellant and the Company. He is not in occupation of the premises in his capacity as an employee of the Company. He is a tenant under Mr. Badani and others on a monthly payment of rent to his landlord. The Company had surrendered the tenancy rights in the flat to the owners due to dilapidation of the building etc. Thereafter, the appellant occupied the flat and was in possession thereof as a direct tenant with the landlords.

5. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence recorded the findings by his judgment and decree dated June 9, 1995 holding that the Company failed to prove that they are the tenant in respect of the suit premises. They had not given the premises to the appellant under leave and licence agreement, as pleaded by them in the plaint. The Company failed to prove that the appellant is a licensee of the suit premises. It also failed to prove that the premises were given to the appellant in lieu of his services. On the other hand, the appellant proved that he is a monthly tenant of the premises with the landlords Badami etc. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. We are informed that an appeal has been filed before the Bench of Small Cause Court and it is pending.JM/JM/S1083/95/RK Sri Santosh Hedge, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, contended that whatever may be the findings recorded by the criminal Court and affirmed by the High Court on the liability of the appellant to deliver possession to the Company by operation of S.630(1) of the Companies Act, they are no longer tenable in view of the findings recorded by the Civil Court. Therefore, the orders passed under S.630(1) of the Companies Act is illegal and unsustainable. Sri Maisty, learned counsel for the Company, contended that the findings of the Small Cause Court are contrary to the evidence and clearly unsustainable. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the criminal Courts for offence under S.630 (1) of the Companies Act, the order passed thereunder does not become illegal. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be rejected and needs no interference under Art.136 of the Constitution.

7. In Baldev Krishna v. Shipping Corpn. of India Ltd. AIR