Delhi District Court
Smt. Raj Rani vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 16 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Crl. Appeal No.12/14
Smt. Raj Rani
Legal Representative of Late Sh. Govind Prasad,
R/o Flat No.4, BlockG, TypeII,
Tripolia Colony, Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
A Company duly registered under
Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office At
Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma,
Delhi. .......Respondent
Date of institution : 09.05.2014
Date of Judgment : 16.05.2014
J U D G M E N T
Present appeal arises out of judgment dt.04.04.2014 and order on sentence dt.11.04.2014 passed by learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central) in Crl. Complaint no.365/3/10 (instituted on 24.05.2006), U/s 630 of Companies Act, 1956.
1
2. Vide impugned judgment dt.04.04.2014, learned Trial Court has held the accused - appellant guilty and accordingly, convicted her of the offence U/s 630 of Companies Act.
3. In brief, case of the complainant - respondent herein, as per complaint filed before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is that Govind Prasad, husband of appellant, having been allotted Flat.No.G4, BlockG, TypeII, Tripolia Colony, Delhi in the course of his employment for residential purpose, did not vacate the same even after cessation of his services on 30.09.2001.
4. During pendency of complaint, Govind Prasad left this world on 25.10.2012 and accordingly, the accused - appellant was arrayed in his place, being his legal representative.
5. Vide order on sentence dt.11.04.2014, learned Trial Magistrate has sentenced the appellants in the manner as : "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, old age of the convict and nature of the offence, the convict is hereby directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the quarter in question i.e. Quarter No. G4, BlockG, TypeII, Tripolia, Delhi and a fine of Rs.1000/ p.m. is also imposed upon the convict from June 2002 to March 2014 (total fine comes to Rs.1,42,000/). In case convict fails to vacate the quarter in question within one month from today, she will undergo a simple imprisonment for one year. If convict vacates the quarter in question within one month from today, 2 the fine so imposed will be be recoverable. The fine would be recoverable, in case convict fails to vacate the quarter in question within stipulated period. If the convict will not vacate the quarter within prescribed period and if she also fails to deposit the fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine.".
Notice for the aforesaid offence was served upon the accused on 09.07.2013. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, complainant examined PW1 Sh. Sushil Kumar, its legal assistant.
6. When examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant admitted that Govind Prasad was allotted the quarter, but pleaded the said allotment was covered by Low Income Group Housing Scheme. She further pleaded that complainant company had not power to ask them to vacate the quarter. However, she did not lead evidence in defence despite opportunity.
7. Today when the appeal has been taken up for argument, appellant has made statement recorded separately seeking time upto 31.12.2014 to vacate the suit premises and to deliver its peaceful and vacant possession to the complainant by then. The statement reads as under: "In this appeal my only submission is that having regard to my old age and that I am not keeping good health, I may be given time upto December, 2014 to vacate the premises no. G4, BlockG, Type II, Tripolia, Delhi - 7. I undertake to vacate the premises on 3 31.12.2014 and deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the complainant - respondent. Accepting my undertaking, this appeal be dismissed as not pressed."
8. As noticed above, complaint under Section 630 of Companies Act read with Section 406 and 409 IPC was filed before the Trial Court by BSES YPL through its Director Sh. P. K. Saxena. Case of the complainant is that Flat No.G4, was alloted to Sh. Govind Prasad while he was working with DESU/DVB, as Assistant Accountant. The premises was allotted to him during the course of his employment and by virtue of his being an employee of DESU/DVB for his residence and residence of his family member. He was required to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises at the time of his cessation of his service or any reason whatsoever or whenever the company desired and asked him to vacate the same during tenure of his service.
9. Further it is case of the complainant that accused was relieved from the service of the company w.e.f. 30.09.2001 and he ceased to be an employee of the DVB. As per allegations levelled in the complaint, accused Govind Prasad was residing unauthorizedly in the aforesaid premises since 01.06.2002. He failed to vacate the premises within the stipulated period of four months.
4
10. Govind Prasad left this world on 25.10.2012 and accordingly, Ms. Raj Rani, wifeLegal Representative of Sh. Govind Prasad was arrayed as respondents.
11. In view of the statement made by authorized representative of the complainant, name of Sh. Pardeep, other Legal Representative of Govind Prasad was dropped, he having no concern with the premises. Notice under Section 251 CrPC was served upon the respondent on 09.07.2013. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. In order to prove its case complainant examined its legal representativeAR Sh. Shushil Kumar.
13. When examined under Section 313 CrPC, appellant admitted the factum of allotment of flat to her husband Sh. Govind Prasad but pleaded that allotment was covered by Low Income Group Scheme as such complainant company has no right over the same. She claimed herself to be in possession of the said flat but at the same time, pleaded that scheme qua quarter in question is under consideration before the Government and complainant has no power to get the same vacated. 5
14. Although appellant admitted factum of allotment of the flat in question to Sh. Govind Prasad, it also stands proved from the statement of PW1 Sh. Shushil Kumar, AR of the complainant that Sh. Govind Prasad was an employee of Delhi Vidyut Board, as Assistant Accountant and that when complainant company took over Delhi Vidyut Board, he became employee of the complainant company.
15. It is also in his statement that Sh. Govind Prasad was allotted the aforesaid quarter by Delhi Vidyut Board during the course of his employment and as a license. In this regard, PW1 proved allotment letter Ex CW1/B. Contents of letter Ex CW1/B reveal that vide this letter dated 11.05.1977, the aforesaid flat was alloted to Sh. Govind Prasad Chaturvedi, Assistant Time Keeper, then serving in Zone III, DistrictIV subject to standing instructions and orders issued from time to time in respect of DESU. Further according to PW1 Sh. Shushil Kumar, Sh. Govind Prasad retired from the complainant company on 30.09.2001. Nowhere the appellant disputed the factum of retirement of her husband on 30.09.2001. According to PW1 even after adjusting the grace period i.e upto 01.06.2002. Sh. Govind Prasad failed to vacate the flat. Notices 6 Ex CW1/D dated 09.06.2004 and Ex PW1/E dated 16.06.2002 were issued and reply dated 25.06.2004 was received from Sh. Govind Prasad. In reply to notice dated 09.06.2004, pleading therein that houses were built and allotted in Low Income Group Housing Scheme, 1954 and that he did not understood as to how the same came to be transferred to respondent company against the provisions of the aforesaid scheme.
16. So far as plea regarding Low Income Group Scheme is concerned, PW1 denied that flat in question was raised under any such scheme. In the given circumstances, it was for the appellant to prove that there was any such scheme. However, appellant did not lead any evidence in proof of any such scheme.
Ex.CW1/C is copy of order dt.13.11.01 vide which Govt. of NCT of Delhi in consultation with previous employer - Delhi Vidyut Board decided classification and allocation of residential colonies and sub station flats of the board to the successor entities. Flats situated in Tripolia Colony are covered by the order.
17. As per para 2 of this order, allocation of colony at substation flats to the successor entities of Delhi Vidyut Board was also subject to the 7 condition, amongst other conditions, that the transferee company will be responsible for eviction in case of unauthorized occupation. There is nothing contrary on record or to doubt genuineness of this order dt. 13.11.01.
Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act reads as under: "Estoppel of tenant: and of licensee or person in possession No tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given." In Smt. Abhilasha V.K. Jain Vs. Cox & Kings and Smt. Sunita Bhagat Vs. Voltas Ltd., 1995 RLR 232 (SC), while dealing with provisions of Sec.630, Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the manner as "Sec.630 of the Act provides speedy relief to the company where its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an "employee or an officer" or a "past employee or an officer" or "legal heirs and representatives" deriving their colour and content from such an "employee or officer" in so far as the occupation and possession of the property belonging to the company is concerned. The failure to deliver property back to the employer on the termination, resignation, superannuation or death of an employee, would render the "holding" of that property wrongful and actionable U/s 630 of the Act. To hold that the "legal heirs" would not be covered by Sec.630 of the Act would be unrealistic and illogical.
8
...............
If an employee or a past employee or anyone claiming the right of occupancy under them, were to continue to "hold" the property belonging to the company, after the right to be in occupation has ceased for one reason or the other, it would not only create difficulties for the company, which shall not be able to allot that property to its other employees but would also cause hardship for the employee awaiting allotment and defeat the intention of the legislature. The courts are therefore obliged to place a broader, liberal and purposeful construction on Sec.630 of the Act in furtherance of the object and purpose of the legislation and construe it in a wider sense to effectuate the intendment of the provision. The "heirs and legal representatives"
of the deceased employee have no independent capacity on the property, which stood allotted to the employee or the officer concerned or resist the return of the property to the employer, in the absence of any express agreement to the contrary entered with them by the employer."
18. In view of provision of Section 116, settled law and material available on record, accused - appellant cannot be permitted to deny relationship of licensor or licensee in respect of quarter in question and to say that the complainant company has instituted the complaint without any right.
19. In view of the above discussion and the material available on record, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 630 of Companies Act.
9
20. On the point of sentence, as noticed above, appellant has made statement that she be given time to vacate property Flat.No.G4, Block G, TypeII, Tripolia Colony, Delhi by 31.12.2014.
AR of the complainantrespondent and learned counsel for the complainantrespondent have submitted that appellant may be given two months time.
21. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that in some of similar cases, learned Trial Magistrate has given time to such occupants to vacate premises upto 31.12.2014. AR of the respondent and learned counsel for respondentcomplainant do not dispute this submission.
22. When Learned Trial Magistrate has given time to other respondents in similar cases, to vacate the property by 31.12.2014, in order to avoid any kind of feeling of discrimination in the mind of appellant and having regard to the fact that appellant is an old aged lady and not keeping good health, this Court deems it a fit case to grant time to the appellant to vacate the suit premises by 31.12.2014.
23. Undertaking given by the appellant in this regard in her statement is accepted. Accordingly, she shall vacate the premises by 31.12.2014 10 and deliver its vacant and peaceful possession of the flat in question to the complainantrespondent.
24. In case appellant commits breach of the undertaking or fails to vacate the premises by 31.12.2014, order on sentence passed by the Trial Court shall be enforced. Appellant has been apprised of this fact.
25. Trial Court Record be returned and appeal file of be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court
on 16.05.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
11