Case: V.M. Shah Vs. State Of Maharashtra And Anr

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 Section 408, IPC and Section 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 Section 630 of the Companies Act and directed restitution of the flat. On appeal, the Session 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 Section 630 of the Companies Act sustainable? We have heard the counsel on both sides. Pending criminal proceedings, the Company laid L.E. & C. Suit No. 104/126 of 1989 in Small Causes 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 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 landlord.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 Causes Court and it is pending.

Court's reasoning:
11. As seen that the civil court after full dressed trial recorded the finding that the appellant had not come into possession through the Company but had independent tenancy rights from the principal landlord and, therefore, the decree for eviction was negatived. Until that finding is duly considered by the appellate Court after weighing the evidence afresh and if it so warranted reversed, the findings bind the parties. The findings, recorded by the criminal court, stand superseded by the findings recorded by the civil court. Thereby, the findings of the civil court get precedence over the findings recorded by the trial court, in particular, in summary trial for offences like Section 630. The mere pendency of the appeal does not have the effect of suspending the operation of the decree of the trial court and neither the finding of the civil court gets nor the decree becomes in- operative.