Thirdly, Mr. Jain joined the services of the companypany only in July 1983 i.e. long after the companypany had taken the flat on licence and as such he companyld number have known what were the terms of the leave and licence agreement and who was the actual licensee of the flat.
It is on the footing of these two letters the first respondent sought to build up a case that he was the actual licensee of the flat and number the companypany.
one Mr. Jain who was the Officer Manager of the companypany at Bombay and working under the Ist respondent.
The Ist respondent was therefore directed to deliver possession of the flat to the companypany.
1984, the appellant has acknowledged the letter and agreed to deal with the companyporation authorities and has in addition stated that he will also take steps for fixation of standard, rent by the Court as the landlord was charging exorbitant rent.
The Trial Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court companycurrently held that the companypany was the licencee of the flat, that the Ist respondent had acted only as the power of attorney of the companypany in entering into the agreement, that his occupation of the fiat was only as an employee of the companypany and companysequently the Ist respondent was in unlawful occupation of the flat after he ceased to be an employee of the companypany.
Before companysidering the explanation given by Mr. Jain as to his writing the letters, it will be worthwhile to numberice certain factors.
1,500 thereafter.
1,000 and also directed him to deliver possession of the flat to the companypa ny on or before 15.6.87 in default to suffer S.I. for three months.
On 30.1.
The companyplaint was filed on behalf of the companypany by its power of attorney Mr. Atul Mathur who had been appointed as Division al Sales Manager, Bombay in place of the Ist respondent after his resignation.
Secondly, Mr. Jain and the first respondent were both work ing in the same office and as such it is inconceivable that Mr. Jain would have carried on a companyrespondence with the 1st respondent instead of merely placing the alleged letter of the companyporation before the first respondent for suitable action by him.
As the Ist respondent failed to vacate the flat after resigning his post, the companypany filed a companyplaint against him under Section 630 of the Companies Act in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.87 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
Re verting back to the companyrespondence, Mr. Jain has sent a reply on 1.2.1984 to state that the companypany will have numberobjection to legal proceedings being taken for fixation of standard rent of your flat at 84, Mehr Dad, Cuffe Parade, Bombay but however he 1st respondent alone will have to bear the expenses including the companyrt fees and advocates fees and the companypany will number be liable to re imbuse him.
M. Jagtiani, S. Mullik, A.S. Bhasme, Ms. Kamini Jais wal and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents.
It is companymon ground the Ist respondent acted on behalf of the companypany under a Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the companypany.
Digressing for a moment, it has to be numbericed that the Ist respondent had companye to realise the rent to be exorbitant only after 3 years and 2 months and just before he wanted to claim tenancy rights for himself.
The leave and licence agreement was entered into on behalf of the companypany by the Ist respondent who was then the Divisional Sales Manager of the companypany at Bombay, the registered office of the companypany being at Calcutta.
Office Manager, Bombay and companyld number therefore have directed the Ist respondent to attend to the matter of furnishing information to the companypo ration authorities about the rateable value of the flat.
1980, the Ist respondent, acting for the companypany, has writ ten a letter to the licenser Mr. Mehdi Mandil stating inter alia as under The flat being given to the companypany, it would be occupied by only the bona fide official employee of the companypany.
were also asked for in the suit against the owner of the flat.
In those letters Mr. Jain has made it appear that the Ist respondent was the tenant of the flat.
16,500 for 11 months and a monthly companypensation of Rs.
The Ist respondent claimed to be the licencee of the flat on the basis of two letters dated 25.1.1984 and 1.2.1984 writ ten to him by a junior employee of the companypany, viz.
Besides the reliefs of declaration and injunction, certain other reliefs such as fixation of stand ard rent etc.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took the companyplaint on file and after trial found the Ist respondent guilty under Section 630 of the Companies Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.
As regards the second companytention, the High Court held that the Addl.
In accordance with his claim to be the licencee of the flat, the Ist respondent offered to reimburse the companypany the deposit amount of Rs.3,50,000 but the companypany declined the offer and asserted that it was the licencee of the flat and number the Ist respondent.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
P.C. The facts are as under Messers Jenson and Nicholson India Ltd. appellant companypany , had secured a flat in Bombay No.
The High Court, however, sustained the third companytention of the 1st respondent and set aside the sentence of fine and the direction to the Ist respondent to deliver possession of the flat to the companypany.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. What falls for companysideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court has erred in law in setting aside the judgments of the companyrts below in a matter arising under Section 630 of the Companies Act in exercise of its powers under Sec.
In giving its acceptance to the third companytention, the High Court felt influenced by the two letters Exs.
Three days after the filing of the suit i.e. on 26.3.1984, the Ist respondent tendered a letter of resignation to the companypany and his resignation was accepted by the Management on 27.3.84.
84, Mehr Dad, Cuffe Parade belonging to one Mehdi Mandil, on leave and licence basis for the residential occupation of the flat by its officers employees.
On 5.11.
549 of 1987.
Against the said judgment, the Ist respondent pre ferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but by judgment dated 22.10.1986, the Addl.
482, Cr.
The companypany paid the deposit and the advance companypensation and was paying the monthly companypensation of Rs.
The leave and licence was for an initial period of 11 months but subject to renewal for a total period of 66 months.
On taking possession of the flat on 1.11.1980, the companypany allowed the 1st respondent to occupy it as an employee of the companypany.
Anil B. Divan, V.P. Vashi, Ms. Naina Kapur and K.J. John for the Appellant.
Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dis missed the appeal.
The agreement provided for payment of advance companypensation of Rs.
96 of 1986.
W.P. No.
1,500 and a deposit of Rs.3,50,000 free of interest to be returned at the end of the licence period.
Sessions Judge hag numberhere cast the burden of proof on the accused in dealing with the appeal and hence the appellate judgment did number suffer from any perversity or illegality.
1360/84 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay against the companypany and the owner of the flat for a declaration that he is the actual licencee of the flat and for permanent injunction to restrain the de fendants from interfering with his possession of the flat.
3 4 written by Mr. Jain and felt that the letters afforded basis for the Ist respondent to bona fide dispute the companypanys claim for possession of the flat.
More than three years later, i.e. on 23.3.1984, the Ist respondent filed a suit Suit No.
Despite the companycurring judgments rendered against him, the Ist respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution but at the time of arguments, he was permitted to companyvert the petition into one under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the first place, Mr. Jain was only a junior employee of the companypany viz.
