1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.432 OF 2011 Navin Bhogilal Panchal Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.Sunil Khorwal i/by Ranvir Shekhawat for applicant. Mr.A.M.Chimalkar and Mr.Raja Mane for respondent no.2 for respondent no.2. Mr.D.R.More, APP for State. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 2nd December 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The revision application is filed under provisions of Section section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the applicant's eviction under section 630 of the Companies Act, as confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2011. 2. The applicant was employee of respondent no.2. He was suspended from services by order dated 18th October 2001 and ultimately after holding Departmental Enquiry, he was dismissed from the employment of respondent no.2 with effect from 27th January 2006. The complaint in question came to be filed on 27th December 2001 under the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act. The learned Magistrate, 49th Court, Vikroli, Mumbai convicted the applicant and further directed him to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the residential 2 quarter to respondent no.2. The order of learned Magistrate was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Appeal. Therefore, applicant has filed present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the date of complaint he was under suspension, and, therefore his relationship with the respondent no.2 as employee-employer was in subsistence. The complaint filed by respondent no.2 was, therefore, premature. On the basis of such premature complaint the applicant could not have been convicted for the offence under section 630 of the Companies Act. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 on the contrary supported the impugned judgments. He submitted that the residential quarter was allotted to the applicant by virtue of Leave and Licence Agreement. After suspension of the applicant, this licence was terminated. Thereafter complaint was filed which was perfectly maintained. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and having gone through the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in the application. The applicant was placed in possession of the residential quarter belonging to respondent no.2 company by virtue of Leave and Licence Agreement (`agreement' for short). Under Clause-20 of the said agreement, the licence to use the rooms/quarter shall stand determined on the happening of any of the following events : (a) employee ceasing to be in the service of the Employers either voluntarily or through a notice of discharge or retirement by way of superannuation; (b) employee being dismissed from service for misconduct within the meaning of the said expression given in the Standing Orders of the Company; (c) the employee committing a breach of any of the conditions and stipulations herein contained; (d) the employers withdrawing or revoking the licence 3 hereby granted; (e) employee's death. Clause-22 of the said Agreement stipulates, as far as possible, three months prior notice in the event of the employer withdrawing or revoking the licence for any reason. The respondent no.2 after applicant's suspension revoked/terminated the licence vide notice dated 7th November 2011. By the said notice, the applicant was required to hand over possession of the quarter back to the respondent no.2 company. The applicant did not comply with this notice and, therefore, the proceedings were initiated under section 630 o the Companies Act. The stipulation of three months prior notice is not mandatory, as apparent from the wording of Clause-22 of the agreement. The applicant in spite of termination/revocation of the licence did not hand over the possession of the said residential quarter and faced the trial. In my view, the respondent no.2 company was not obliged to wait till dismissal of the applicant from service. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant next contended that the applicant could not have been evicted in view of the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 26th November 2002 in Writ Petition No.2690 of 2002. The submission is without any substance. By the said order the respondent no.2 was directed not to evict the applicant without following due process of law. It is not the case of the applicant that due process of law is not followed. 7. Taking over all view of the matter I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order in my jurisdiction under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. 8. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant prays that some time may be given to the applicant to vacate the premises. Learned advocate 4 for respondent no.2 vehemently opposes this requests. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, the applicant is given three months time from today to evict the premises subject to usual undertaking to be filed by the applicant and his family members on or before 16th December 2011. (R.V.MORE, J.)