1995 Supreme(Guj) 167

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.Bhatt
PRAHLADBHAI RAJARAM MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
POPATBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 621 of 1994
Decided On : 03/26/1995

Headnote:(a) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sec. 13(1)(f) - Eviction - Employee inducted in premises of company in relation to his employment - Employee ceased to be in employment - Held, he is liable to be rejected.

       The accused who was an employee was inducted in the premises of the company in relation to his employment and his possession was conditional upon his remaining in the employment of the company. That relationship of master and servant or employee and employer resulted into occupation of disputed room of the company. Under the provisions of Section 13(1)(f) of the Bombay Rent Act, if the company proves that the accused was a tenant on account of his being in service of the company and that such employee has ceased to be in such service, such `service- occupier is also liable to be ejected. He has personal right to occupy the premises of the company so long as he remains in service of the company.

       [Para 17]

       (b) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13 (1)(f) and 28 - Eviction - Employee ceased to be in employment - Employer can seek possession under Rent Act - Company has also option to pursue remedy under sec. 630 - Held, two remedies are open to company - Provisions of Rent Act do not constitute hurdle in pursuing remedy under Rent Act.

       If the company decides to seek possession under Section 13(1)(f) against the employee-tenant, the company has to pursue the remedies before a competent court as provided under Section 28 of the Rent Act. The provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act also provide a special remedy which is summary in nature against a person who ceases to be in employment of the company who was given possession of the premises out of such service relation. Thus the company has option either to pursue the remedy provided under Section 630 of the Companies Act or under Section 13(1)(f) under the Rent Act. There are thus two remedies open to the companies. The provisions enacted in Section 13(1)(f) or Section 28 of the Rent Act do not constitute a hurdle or hindrance in the way of pursuing remedy under Section 630 of the Companies Act.

       [Para 17]

       (c) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 - Eviction - Two remedies open to company - Held, two remedies are concurrent - Company can invoke provisions under Companies Act for filing prosecution and is also entitled to file suit for eviction under Rent Act.

       Two remedies available to the landlords are concurrent, one is for criminal prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act; whereas, the other remedy is provided under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. Once the court finds that where even tenancy and, not a licence, was created in consequence of the employment of the accused, the company is empowered to invoke provisions of Section 630 for filling prosecution. The company incorporated under the Companies Act can be a landlord for the purposes of Section 13(1)(f) and is entitled to file a suit for recovery of possession under the Bombay Rent Act.

       [Para 19]

       (d) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13 (1) (f) & 28 - Eviction - Right of service - Occupier as licensee or lessee is personal and attributable to employment - Held, his legal representatives have no locus standi and have no right to claim tenancy.

       The right of the `service-occupier may be licensee or lessee, is personal and is attributable to the employment with the company or master. Therefore, even in case of death of such employee, pending the proceedings before the court, his heirs or legal representatives have no `locus-standi and have no right to claim tenancy rights.

       [Para 19]

       (e) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13 (1) (f) & 28 - Eviction - Entitlement of employee of Company is co-terminus with termination of service - Held, employee is bound to hand over possession to company as soon as employement ceases.

       Entitlement of an employee of a company registered under the Companies Act to occupy companys premises is co-terminus with termination of his service and such right would stand extinguished as soon as the employment ceases and the employee is bound to hand over possession to the company.

       [Para 19]

       (f) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13 (1) (f) & 28 - Eviction - Two remedies are concurrent - Tenancy proved - Held, remedy for possession under Sec. 630 is not barred.

       The provisions of section 13(1)(f) of the Rent Act and the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act are providing concurrent two remedies. Therefore, it cannot be contended that once tenancy is proved, the remedy under section 630 is barred or not available to the company or employer.

       [Para 19]

       (g) Interpretation of Statutes - Meaning of Statute Plain - Held, no regard be paid to previous law.

       If the meaning of the statute is plain, no regard should be paid to the previous law. The proper course in the first instance is to examine the language of the statute and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law.

       [Para 20]

       (h) Interpretation of Statutes - Words capable of one meaning alone - Held, it must be adopted and (ii) Court must pay regard to objects & purposes if words are susceptible of wider import.

       If the words are capable of one meaning alone, it must be adopted, but if they are susceptible of wider import, the court has to pay regard to the objects and purposes for which the particular piece of legislation had been enacted.

       [Para 20]

       (i) Interpretation of Statutes - Intention be ascertained from text of enactment - Held, statute be construed with some imagination of purpose.

       The intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of the enactment in question. The text is not to be interpreted without reference to its nature or purpose. The statute should be construed not as the theorems of Euclid, but with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them.

       [Para 20]

       (j) Interpretation of Statutes - Anomaly - Obvious anomaly in application of statute - Held, court must shape law to remove anomaly.

       If there is an obvious anomaly in the application of the law, the courts could shape the law to remove the anomaly.

       [Para 20]

       (k) Interpretation of Statutes - Gramatical interpretation giving rise to absurdity - Held, Court should discard such interpretation.

       If the strict grammatical interpretation gives rise to absurdity or inconsistency, the Court should discard such interpretation and adopt an interpretation and adopt an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose of the legislature.

       [Para 20]

       (l) Maxium "Ut res magis valeat quam pereat" - Held, words of legislature must be construed to give them sensible means.

       The words of the Act of Parliament must be so construed as to give them a sensible meaning, following the principle, `Ut res magis valeat quam pereat. The primary test is, however, the language employed in the Act, it is the paramount duty of the judicial interpreter to put upon the language of the legislature its plain and rational meaning and to Promote its objects.

       [Para 21]

       (m) Interpretation of Statutes - Non-obstante clause of two different statutes - Held, court must determine effect on broad consideration of purpose & policy of statutes.

       No doubt, a non-obstante clause in Section 28 of the Rent Act makes a provision self-contained in Section 28. However, the non-obstante clause does not override the subsequent special provisions in the statute made by the same legislature or by the Parliament. Where the court has to construe non-obstante clause of two different statutes, the court must determine the effect of such clauses on a broad consideration of the purpose and policy underlying on a broad consideration of the purpose and policy underlying the two statutes and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions of both the statutes.

       [Para 22]

       (n) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1) (f) & 28 - Employees failing to vacate premises - When employment is ceased - Held, legislature has treated it as abuse of privilege and has made specific provisions for conviction under sec. 630.

       The employees fail to vacate the residential accommodation given to them and they contend that they are either tenants or protected licensees. The legislature has, therefore, designedly treated such an attitude on the part of the employee as an abuse of the benefit or privilege and has made a specific provision for that prupose by providing Section 630 of the Companies Act. Section 630 provides conviction and consequential eviction against such employees.

       [Para 23]

       (o) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 - No conflict between provisions of two statutes - Held, provisions be interpreted harmoniously to advance object of statutes.

       There is no conflict between Section 630 and the provisions of the Rent Act. Section 630 is intended to give two special summary remedies, civil as well as criminal, which would be speedier than those provided under the Rent Act. The provisions of Section 13(1)(f) read with Section 28 provide a remedy for eviction of the employee, even if he pleads tenancy. The provisions of sub-section (4A) of Section 5 of the Bombay Rent Act applicable in Maharashtra provide that even as a licensee such an employee has no protection of the Rent Act. The relevant words in that sub-section are `a person in the service or employment of the licensor. Such a person is excluded from the protection of the Rent Act. Thus, the provisions of the Rent Act and the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act are required to be interpreted harmoniously so that the object of both the statute is advanced and not defeated.

       [Para 24]

       (p) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 Interpretation of Statutes - Harmonious construction - Applying test of - Provisions of both statutes be interested harmoniously - Held, interpretation put by Magistrate was erroneous, unreasonable & perverse.

       Applying the test and yardstick of harmonious construction, it can very well be concluded that the provisions of both the statutes, one of the Stage and one of the Central are required to be construed and interpreted harmoniously so that the object of each statute can be advanced. The interpretation made by the learned Magistrate would mean obliterating the material provisions of Section 630 from the live statute book apart from doubting the wisdom of the Parliament. Such a construction or interpretation is not only erroneous and unreasonable but is patently perverse and manifestly illegal.

       [Para 24]

       (q) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 - Both Act provide speedy remedies - Rent Act has broader spectrum - Held, provisions of Sec. 28 of Rent Act prevail over Sec. 630 of Companies Act.

       The court should consider the scope of both such Acts. Rent Act is intended to provide speedy remedy or machinery for dealing with diverse relatons and matters between ordinary landlords and their tenants and licensors and licensee, in general. The Rent Act has a broader spectrum compared to Section 630 of the Companies Act. The provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 28 of the Rent Act.

       [Para 26]

       (r) Constitution of India - Art. 254 and Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sec. 13(1)(f) & 28 and Interpretation of Statutes - Constitution of - Both Acts be interpreted on touch stone of harmonious construction - When conflict between two provisions - Held, provisions of Central Act must prevail over State Act.

       In case of any conflict between the Central law and the State law, the Central law will prevail over the State law. Therefore, from any angle, either from interpreting the provisions of both the Acts on the touch-stone of harmonious construction or from later in point of time or in light of the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act are unaffected and also invokable irrespective of the non-obstante clause contained in Section 28 of the Rent Act.

       [Para 26]

       (s) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sec, 2(c)(iii) and Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 - Sphere under Rent Act is wider than under Public Premises Act special law carved out by Parliament by enacting Sec. 630 by limiting special class of companies and service-occupiers.

       The sphere and horizon under the Bombay Rent Act of its subjects is wider in relation to the relationship of landlords and tenants. In the Public Premises Act provisions are also made with a view to provide speedy and effective remedies for eviction against unauthorised occupants of certain public premises. Thus, the circle or sphere of the subject and object both is smaller than the Bombay Rent Act and it is still smaller and wholly circumscribed to the special class of corporate owners or landlords and service occupiers under the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act. Thus, a special class is carved out by the Parliament by enacting provisions in Section 630. Therefore, a special law regulating relationship between landlords and tenants under the Bombay Rent Act which is wider in nature is circumscribed under the Public Premises Act in relation to public premises and very much circumscribed by enacting provisions under Section 630 limiting to the special class of companies and service occupiers.

       [Para 31]

       (t) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 and Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sec. 2(c)(iii) - Employee out of service since 1.9.1984 - Received full dues, retiral benefits and using premises of company - Employee having his own bungalow - Dispute raised under Rent Act - Held, it cannot be said that prosecution under sec. 630 is not maintainable.

       An employee who has been out of service since 1.9.1984 after having received full dues and retiral benefits from the company, as using the premises belonging to the company for more than a decade, though he has his own bungalow constructed in Punit Park Society, Nadiad. Could a person who has been an owner of a bungalow be allowed to contend that the prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act is not maintainable only because of the fact that he has raised the dispute of tenancy and envisaged protection of Bombay Rent Act? Obvious answer would be in the negative. Such a dishonest contention goes counter to the purpose, purport and object of the beneficent provisions of Section 630.

       [Para 32]

       (u) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 - Scope of Sec. 630 cannot restricted by reference to Sec. 28 of Rent Act - Held, court cannot cut down provisions of Sec. 630 on basis of provisions of Rent Act.

       The scope and ambit of the provisions of Section 630 cannot be restricted by reference to the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Rent Act. Such an approach adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only illogical, unjust but is arbitrary and illegal. Such an approach would strike at the very root and object of the provisions of Section 630. This Court cannot cut down the provisions of Section 630 on the basis of the provisions under the Rent Act.

       [Para 32]

       (v) Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 and Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sec. 2(c) - Scope & object of two Act are different - Held, Public Premises Act has broader specturm & is special Act and overriders provisions of Rent Act.

       Both the scope and the object of the Public Premises Act is quite different from that of the Rent Act. The Rent Act if of much wider application than the Public Premises Act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in Section 2 of the Public Premises Act. It is clearly held that there can be no doubt that the Public Premises Act as compared to the Rent Act which has a very broad spectrum is a special Act and overrides the provisions of the Rent Act.

       [Para 34]

       (w) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 - Term "Officer or employee" - Meaning of - Held, it includes employee withholding premises after termination of employment.

       The term`officer or employee in Section 630 applies not only to existing officers or employees of a company but also to past officers or employees, if such officer or employee either (a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of the company, or (b) having obtained such property during the course of his employment, withholds the same after the termination of his employment.

       [Para 36]

       (x) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Secs. 13(1)(f) & 28 - When conflict between 2 Act - Held, provisions of Sec. 630 override provisions of Rent Act.

       It can be inferred that Parliament noticed and took note of non-obstante clause contained in Section 28 of the Rent Act which came into force on 19.1.1948, while making special provision of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 which came in force on 1.4.1956. Therefore, even in case of conflict or repugnancy, provisions of Section 630 shall override the provisions of the Rent Act.

       [Para 39]

       (y) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Criminal Procedure Code - Secs. 468 & 472 - Wrongful withholdings of possession - Held, it is continuing offence and provisions of Sec. 472 apply.

       Wrongful withholding or wrongfully obtaining possession and wrongful application of the companys property, that is, for purposes other than those exprssed or directed in the articles of the company and authorised by the Companies Act, cannot be said to be terminated by a single act or fact but would subsist for the period untill the property in the offenders possession is delivered up or returned to the company. The offence under Section 630 is not such as can be said to be one time, one for all wrongful withholding of the property of the company. Thus, it is a continuing offence and shall continue until the property is delivered to the company. Therefore, Section 472 of the Code will apply and not provisions of Section 468 of the Code.

       [Para 44]

       (z) Companies Act, 1956 - Sec. 630 and Criminal Procedure Code - Sec. 235 - Sentence - Held, accused be heard on quantum of sentence before passing order. (ii) Accused 73 yrs. old and owning his own bungalow - He is directed to vacate premise, within 3 months. and (iii) Court should strike balance and exercise powers unjust reasonable manner.

       Obviously, here, there shall be a statutory pause as mandated by Section 235 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. Before passing sentence order, it is incumbent to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act. The accused has a Bungalow in Punit Park Society, Nadiad, ordinarily in such a case, accused should be directed to deliver up and hand over possession of the premises of the company immediately. However, since the accused is aged about 73 years, in the larger interest of justice, reasonable time may be given. In the circumstances, the respondent-accused is directed to deliver up and hand over possession of the premises of Room No, 30 bearing municipal census No. 5/947, New Shorrock Nagar, Nadiad belonging to company within 90 days, i.e., on or before 10.6.1995 failing which or in default shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Court is obliged to strike the balance and has to exercise the powers under Section 630 so that the grounds personal to the accused at the stage of sentence can be considered and at the same time, mandate of Section 630 and the purport and purpose of the special provision for conviction and eviction is also subserved. What should be the just and reasonable balance will have to be decided on the facts of each given case.

       [Paras 47, 50 & 51]