( 1 ) CHHATRASINGH Nathusingh Vaghela - the original accused in Cri. Case No. 48 of 1989 has filed the present revision application against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate in Cri. Case No. 48 of 1989 under S. 630 of the Companies Act on 13-6-1997.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 2 filed this private complaint under S. 630 of the companies Act against the present revision applicant on the allegation that though he retired on 31-3-1986 he did not hand over the possession of the premises allotted to him in lieu of his employment though he was called upon to do so by a notice. The revision applicant had contended that the premises in question were not given to him in lieu of his employment. He was initially paying rent and subsequently the house Rent Allowance (H. R. A.) which he was entitled to get as per the terms and conditions of the settlement was also not being paid to him. It is his contention that the real relationship between the complainant and himself is that of landlord and tenant and that the Company had already filed a suit under the Bombay Rent Act in the year 1987 and that this false case was lodged against him, in order to pressurise him.

( 3 ) IN order to prove its case against the revision applicant the respondent No. 2 - original complainant had examined himself and he had examined one more witness in support of his claim. He had also produced documents to prove his case against the present revision applicant. As against this the revision applicant had not examined any witness in support of his defence but had produced certain documents.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate found that the version put up by the present revision applicant was not acceptable and that the complainant had proved his case against the revision applicant beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, held him guilty under s. 630 (1) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 and passed a further order under S. 630 (2) to vacate the premises in his occupation.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the revision applicant has come before this court. The first contention raised on behalf of the revision applicant is that from the materials on record, it would be quite clear that the claim raised by the revision applicant that the real relationship between the revision applicant and the complainant company is that of a tenant and landlord could not be said to be false. It is further contended that as the Company had already resorted to a civil proceedings by filing a suit under S. 13 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act, present prosecution is not tenable in law in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Prahladbhai Rajaram mehta v. Popatbhai Haribhai Patel , [1995 (2)] XXXVI (2) GLR 1752. Thus, it is pointed out that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the applicant will have to be quashed and set aside and the applicant is entitled to get an order of acquittal. As against this the learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 vehemently urged before me that even in the civil proceedings, the civil Court has found that the revision applicant was in occupation of the premises in lieu of his employment and therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that the claim of the revision applicant that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the complainant is not tenable, is quite proper and correct. He contended that neither the provisions of S. 630 nor the provisions of S. 13 of the Bombay Rent act make incumbent upon the respondent No. 2-original complainant to choose either of the two forums. He thus contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate deserves to be maintained and the present revision application is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute of the fact that present revision applicant was working as a peon with the complainant Company. It is an admitted fact he retired on 31-3-1986 on his attaining the age of su