Delhi District Court
The Church Of North India Trust ... vs . Phoolwati Etc on 12 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts) CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
The Church of North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc
CC No.3076/3
U/s 630 of Companies Act, 1956
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial no. of the case : 02401R0651932009
(b) Date of commission of offence: On/after 27.02.2008 continuously
(c) Name of complainant : Church North India Trust Association Free Church, 10, Parliament Street, New Delhi (through its attorney)
(d) Name, parentage, residence: 1)Phoolwati w/o late Sh. Dhani Ram
2)Chander Pal
3)Ranjit
4)Sanjit
5)Bobby
6)Dhiraj
7)Gopi, all s/o late Sh. Dhani Ram All r/o Free Church, 10 Parliament Street, New Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 630 of Companies Act
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final order : Convicted
(h) Date of such order : 12.02.2015
Date of Institution : 02.04.2009
Arguments heard/order reserved: 31.01.2015
Date of Judgment: 12.02.2015
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The complainant i.e The Church of North India Trust Association (for short the 'CNITA') through its Authorized Representative Mr. Deepak Paul & Rev. Patrick The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 1 of 20 R. Motilal. The CNITA is stated to be duly registered and incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Pandit Pant Mark, New Delhi. The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 630 of Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') against the aforesaid accused persons who are Legal Heir of deceased Dhani Ram who was employee of the complainant.
2. The warp and woof the present case is that deceased Dhani Ram was employed since December, 1967 as a sweepercumwatchman initially and later on as peoncumcleaner in the Free Church, Parliament Street. As part of Dhani Ram's contract of service with company, a quarter in the Free Church, 10, Sansad Marg premises (behind the Parish Hall consisting of one room, kitchen with separate bathroom and toilet with free usage of electricity and water) was provided by virtue of his employment to better perform his duties. The said premises was given to late Dhani Ram since 1967 without charging any rent or licence fee with the terms and condition that same will be vacated on termination of his service with the complainant company. During his service tenure, late Dhani Ram expired on 27.02.2008, thus, accused persons were/are liable to vacate the said premises but they failed to do so.
On 15.04.2008, accused no.1 moved an application before the complainant company for compassionate appointment of one of her sons. Accordingly, accused persons were called for a meeting on 17.05.2008 in which they were informed that application moved by accused no.1 has been rejected. Thereafter, accused persons were asked to vacate the premises in The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 2 of 20 question but they failed to do so despite several notices and they are withholding the said premises wrongfully. Hence, present complaint.
3. The accused persons were summoned and a notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/s 630(1)(b) of the Act was given to the accused persons separately to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its allegation, the complainant Mr. Deepak Paul examined himself as PW5, SI Ghanshyam (from PS Parliament Street) as PW1, Mr. Paul Chario (Social Security Assistant from EPFO Ministry of Labour Govt. of India) as PW2, Mr. Mahabir Datt (Food Inspector) as PW3 and Mr. Ram Gopal Dass (Supervisor from Assembly Constituency40) as PW4.
5. PW1 SI Ghanshyam proved inquiry report Ex.PW1/A regarding complaint made by Mr. Dhiraj (accused no.6) against the member of the Managing Committee of the Church before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Govt. of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi.
6. PW2 Sh. Paul Charioa has proved on record his authority letter Ex.PW2/1 to appear before the court and relevant documents i.e Form 6A and Form 23 under EPF Scheme, 1952 for the year 199192 as well as for the year 199293 to 200708 as Ex.PW2/2, Ex.PW2/3 and Ex.PW2/4 showing name, account number and deposit amount of deceased Dhani Ram.
7. PW3 Sh. Mahabir Datt has proved copy of eprintout of ration card of The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 3 of 20 deceased Dhani Ram as PW3/1 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW3/2.
8. PW4 Sh. Ram Gopal Dass has proved summons Ex.PW4/1 upon which he was authorized to appear before the court and relevant documents i.e. print out of Electoral Roll Assembly Constituency40, New Delhi, General Part 68, Section 5 as Ex.PW4/2 bearing the name of family members of deceased Dhani Ram and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as PW4/3.
9. PW5 Mr. Deepak Paul, the attorney of CNITA, proved on record Special Power of Attorney in his favour as Ex.PW5/1. PW5 further proved on record Incorporation Certificate of CNITA as Ex.PW5/2, receipt for obtaining certified copies of certificate as Ex.PW5/6, certified copies of AOA, MOA, Form 23 as Ex.PW5/3, Ex.PW5/4 and Ex.PW5/5, booklet containing Constitution of Church of North India and its byelaws published for and on behalf of CNITA by Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in Delhi as Ex.PW5/7, certified copies of CNITA's title documents (Perpetual Lease) qua premises in question along with map, copy of power of attorney dated 09.03.2004, power of attorney dated 12.12.2012 (notarized by Dolores Rice Notary Public on 11.06.2013 and apostille on 28.06.2013 as Ex.PW5/8, Ex.PW5/9, Ex.PW5/10 and Ex.PW5/11 respectively and letter dated 07.02.2012 through which power of attorney dated 12.12.2012 sent to the CNITA without notorization and apostilled received back to do the needful as Ex.PW5/12. The witness has also proved on record copy of letter dated December, 1967 through which the The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 4 of 20 premises in question was given to deceased Dhani Ram as Ex.PW5/13, relevant page of salary register showing payment of salary to deceased Dhani Ram as Ex.PW5/14, death certificate of deceased Dhani Ram as Ex.PW5/15, notice dated 17.05.2008 seeking vacation of premises in dispute as Ex.PW5/16, copy of application written by accused no.1 for compassionate appointment of one of her sons Ex.PW5/17, Minutes of Meeting held on 17.05.2008 Ex.PW5/18, copy of application dated 13.03.2009 and its reply dated 30.03.2009 as Ex.PW5/19 and Ex.PW5/20 and Special Power of Attorney dated 26.07.2013 issued by Mr. Alwan Masih, Secretary of the complainant company and also holder of power of attorney dated 12.12.2012 issued by Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Trust (WMMTA) and Methodist Missionary Trust Association (MMTA) in favor of complainants as Ex.PW5/21. The witness was cross examined at length on behalf of the accused.
10.Statements of all accused persons were recorded u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C. separately. In their statements, all accused persons denied the material allegation stating that late Sh. Dhani Ram had never been employee of the complainant company and he was employed with Free Church and served in Free Church till his death. The complainant company is not the owner of the premises in question and thus, has no authority, title or locus to file the present complaint.
11.In support of claim and contentions, accused examined Sh. Ramesh Dutta, Sr. Assistant (Property Tax), NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi as DW1, Sh. R.K. The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 5 of 20 Saini, Sr. Technical Assistant from the office of ROC, Delhi as DW2 and Sh. Bhagwan Singh Yadav, Senior Assistant from the office of EPF, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi, as DW3.
DW1 Sh. Ramesh Dutta proved on record eprintout of property details i.e PID No.P11990 and copy of other documents pertaining to Baptish Mission Free Church, 10, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi, as Ex.DW1/1(colly running into 40 pages).
DW2 Sh. R.K. Saini proved on record document file of CNITA bearing 557936 as Ex.DW2/1 (running into 195 pages) and computer generated Register of Directors, Manging Directors, Manager and Secretary etc as Ex.DW2/2.
DW3 Sh. Bhagwan Singh Yadav proved on record his authority letter to appear before the court as Ex.DW3/1 and certified copy of original ledger card no.80357 and 80355/2000 of deceased Dhani Ram, A/c No.13306/912 maintained by PF Office as Ex.DW3/2, copy of the summary details of PF account of deceased Dhani Ram from the CNI Provident Fund (Trust) prior to 01.07.1991 as Ex.DW3/3 and copy of original of the said data after 01.07.1991 as Ex.DW3/3.
12.I have heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as accused and gone through the records. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of parties and considered the relevant provisions of law.
13.Relevant provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 is reproduced The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 6 of 20 for ready reference: "(1) If any officer or employee of a company
(a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or
(b) having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by this Act, He shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditors or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to [ten thousand rupees].
The Court trying the offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the Court, any such property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."
14.It is settled law that the scope of inquiry in a proceedings u/s 630 of Companies Act, 1956 is extremely restricted in law and the case is to be confined within those narrow ambit's without permitting any delay. The provision contained in Section 630 has been purposely enacted by the legislature with the object of providing a summary procedure for retrieving the property of the company. It is the duty of the Court to place a broad and liberal construction on the provisions in furtherance of the object and purpose of the legislation which would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. It was held in "1989 (4) SC 514, Atul Mathur vs Atul Kalra and Another" that the purpose of enacting Section 630 is to provide speedy relief to a company when its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an employee or an exemployee.
15.While dealing with the case U/s 630 of Companies Act, this court is to go by the following guidelines which are laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 7 of 20 Court in "1993 CRI. L.J. 2791 " K.G.K. Nair v. P.C. Juneja".
"The provisions of S.630 are intended to provide speedy and efficacious redress in cases where company's property is wrongfully withheld and therefore the following guidelines are required to be observed:
(i) That the complaints be taken up and disposed of on a priority basis, the accent being on the avoidance of any unwarranted delay.
(ii) That the trial Courts should address themselves to the fact that the scope of the enquiry in a proceeding under Section 630 is extremely restricted in law and, consequently, the parties be confined within those narrow ambits without being permitted to dilate or protract the proceeding through extraneous avenues.
(iii) That no frivolous application for adjournment, stay of proceedings, etc., should be permitted by the trial Courts because the history of those proceedings indicate that each of such states is responsible for further litigation and years of delay. The pendency of other civil proceedings is no bar to the decision of an application under S. 630 which fact should be taken cognizance of in such situations.
(iv) That the appeal, i.e., Court of Session, in the first instance, must judiciously scrutinize and vigorously examine the revision applications and appeal before granting stay orders.
(v) That applications for discharge on frivolous and untenable pleas are required to be speedily and effectively disposed of and are not to be used as handles for protracting the litigation".
16.In the case of "S.K. Sarma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma, AIR 2002 SC 3294 = 2002 AIR SCW 3827" the case pertains to Section 138 of Railways Act which is somewhat similar to section 630 of the Companies Act and which provides a procedure for summary delivery to railway administration, of property, detained by a railway servant. It was observed as follows:
"The object of the aforesaid Section is to provide speedy summary procedure for taking back the railway property detained by the railway servant or his legal representative. Properties include not only dwelling house, office or other building but also papers and any other matters. This would mean that the Section embraces in its sphere all unlawful detention of any railway property by the railway servant............The word 'discharge' used in context is of widest amplitude and would include cessation of relationship of employer and employee, may be retirement, resignation, dismissal or removal. This Court in "Union of The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 8 of 20 India v. B.N. Prasad [(1978) 2 SCC 462]" considered Section 138 and held that a close perusal of the section clearly reveals that the provisions has widest amplitude and takes within its fold not only a railway servant but even a contractor who is engaged for performing services to the railway, and the termination of his contrat by the Railway amounts to his discharge, as mentioned in Section 138. The Court also observed that the said provision is in public interest and must be construed liberally, broadly and meaningfully so as to advance the object sought to be achieved by Railways Act........"
17.Learned defence counsel has vehemently advanced four arguments (i) that the present complaint was filed without authority (ii) that the complainant company is not the owner of the premises in question and thus has no authority, title or locus to file the present complaint (iii) that late Sh. Dhani Ram had never been employee of the complainant company, (iv) that he was employed with Free Church and served in Free Church till his death. In view of the arguments of learned defence counsel, the complainant was required to prove the ingredients to prove the offence u/s 630 of the Act against the accused persons.
(a) Ownership of complainant of the aforesaid property;
(b) That deceased Dhani Ram was employee of the complainant company and quarter in question was given to him by virtue of his employment;
(c) That deceased Dhani Ram ceased to be employee of the complainant company and after his death, his legal heirs/accused persons are wrongfully withheld the property in question.
18.(i) Firstly, it is argued on behalf of the accused that the present complaint is filed without authority. It is contended that present complaint was filed by AR Mr. Deepak Paul who was authorized by SPA dated 25.03.2009 executed by Rev. Enos Das Pradhan who drew his authority from power of attorney dated 09.03.2009 Ex.PW5/10 issued by WMMTA and MMTA. It is The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 9 of 20 further contended that said Rev. Enos Das Pradhan retired in October, 2012 and no application for substitution was filed and allowed. Further, Rev. Enos Das Pradhan was alleged to be authorized to represent the complainant company through SPA issued by Rev. Sunil Kumar. But it is not clear as to what was capacity/authority of said Sunil Kumar to issue the said power of attorney. Further, the SPA Ex.PW5/1 is no attorney in the eyes of law at it bears different dates viz on the first page on the stamp paper it has 18th day of April, 2012 however on the last page which bears the signature, the date mentioned is 6th February, 2012. However, this plea of the accused does not inspire any confidence. From bare perusal of SPA Ex.PW5/1, it appears that there is a typographical mistake on the last page on it. The date of purchase of stamp paper as well as its notarization clearly mentions date as 18th April, 2012. Furthermore, the SPA Ex.PW5/1 through which complainant was authorized to file the present complaint has no relevance because the complainants Rev. P.R. Motilal, Presbyter Incharge and Chairman of Free Church, Diocese of Delhi, Church of North India and Mr. Deepak Paul, Hony. Secretary, Free Church was authorized by Rev. Dr. Enos Das Pradhan, Secretary, Church of North India Trust Association & General Secretary, CNI Synod, through SPA dated 25.03.2009 (copy of the same SPA is on record). By virtue of power of attorney Ex.PW5/10 two of the Members of the Committee of Management and the Secretary of WMMTA and MMTA were appointed and by virtue of said attorney Ex.PW5/10 said Rev. Dr. Enos Das Pradhan being the Secretary of CNITA was appointed to transfer property/do The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 10 of 20 the needful with the authority to appoint successors to the trusteeship of the CNITA. Present complaint was filed by the complainant on 02.04.2009 and thus it can not be said that the present complaint was not filed by the competent person.
(ii) Furthermore, through SPA dated 26.07.2013 Ex.PW5/21 Revd. Suresh Kumar, Presbyter Incharge of Free Church, Diocese and Mr. Deepak Paul Member of Free Church were appointed for protection of property of Free Church and take all appropriate/legal steps to protect the properties from illegal occupation, construction or encroachment. It is further contended that power of attorney Ex.PW5/21 is not a valid document as it was executed in December, 2012 but signed and apostatized in 11.06.2013. However, this plea of the accused does not carry much weight. It is clear from the record that prior to execution of the document Ex.PW5/11, one power of attorney dated 9th June, 2011 was sent to Mr Steve Pearce, Partnership Coordinator, Asia & the Pacific, The Methodist Church, Methodist Church House, 25 Marylebone Road, London which was returned back through letter Ex.PW5/12 as the same was not notorised. Thereafter, fresh power of attorney i.e Ex.PW5/21 was notarized in India on 12.07.2013 and same was sent to London for its signature from the concerned persons. After being apostatized and signed, the power of attorney Ex.PW5/21 was sent back to the complainant and all these process must have consumed considerable time.
(iii) Perusal of power of attorney shows that it has been perfectly and legally notarized and it fulfills all the ingredients of section 85 of Indian The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 11 of 20 Evidence Act. Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that once there is a duly notarized power of attorney, then it shall be presumed to be true unless the contrary is proved. Accused has not produced any thing to disprove the power of attorney. This court is supported with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "AIR 1971, SC 761, Jugraj Singh vs Jaswant Singh".
(iv) This court is further supported with the case law "AIR, 1982 Delhi 4897, Citibank N.A., New Delhi vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills ©. Ltd." in which it has been held that execution of power of attorney by a Bank's Executive Officer and Cashier delegating certain powers to one employee and documents bearing Bank's seal and attested by Notary Public raises presumption that power of attorney is executed by the bank. Word "person" in section 85 includes legal person. It is further held by the Hon'ble High Court in "AIR 1981 Delhi 222" and "AIR 1972 Allahabad 219" that a power of attorney along with verifications are to be presumed to be true u/s 85 of Evidence Act. This court is further supported with the case law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in "AIR 2007 Delhi 147, Kamla Rani and Ors vs M/s Texmaco". It was contended by the employee before Hon'ble High Court that eviction case was not filed by a properly authorized person and Hon'ble High Court held that: ...Once a document is authenticated by a notary public, it will be presumed that the document was duly executed and was in order. As observed in AIR 1984 (363( (sic) M/s E.C. and E.Co. Ltd. v. M/s J. E. Works, if two conditions are satisfied, firstly the power of attorney being executed before a notary public and secondly it being authenticated by a notary public, a presumption would arise under section 85 about the The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 12 of 20 executant of the power of attorney. ...Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "AIR 1997 SC 3 Union of India vs Gresham Kumar"
is additionally relied upon by me. The said decision states that where a suit has been filed on behalf of a corporate body and is duly prosecuted by the person who had filed the suit, a presumption would arise that the person concerned was authorized to do so".
19.Learned defence counsel further argued that the complainant company is not the owner of the premises in question as chain of the title documents qua premises in question has not been proved by the complainant and address in allotment letter is different and thus has no authority, title or locus to file the present complaint. Reliance is also placed upon "CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 88008801/2013 titled as Vinod Kumar M Malvia etc. vs. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti & Ors." and "Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. vs Mrs. Manjula S. Agerwalla dated 08.04.2014" in support of claim and contentions. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant company is the owner of the premises in question and placed reliance upon the documents i.e Perpetual Lease Deed dated 24.10.1922 Ex.PW5/8 issued by Chief Commissioner, Delhi Province pertaining pertaining to the premises in question, Indenture dated 05.06.1928 Ex.PW5/9 between The Baptist Missionary Trust Association (BMSC) and The Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Trust Association (WMMTA) pertaining to property in question, Power of Attorney dated 09.03.2004 Ex.PW5/10 executed WMMTA and Methodist Missionary Trust Association (MMTA) and Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2013 as well as Apostille dated 28.06.2013 Ex.PW5/11 executed between WMMTA and MMTA. Bare perusal of all these documents clearly reflect that by virtue of Indenture Ex.PW5/9, The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 13 of 20 Power of Attorney Ex.PW5/10 and Power of Attorney/Apostille Ex.PW5/11, the property in question stood transferred to the complainant company at least for all practical purposes i.e for maintaining, allotting and or for eviction.
20.Perusal of these documents further reveals that in 1922, the plot of land containing by admeasurement 4.223 acres situated at Delhi including the property in question was given on lease through Perpetual Lease Ex.PW5/8 by the Secretary of State for India in Council to The Baptist Missionary Society Corporation (BMSC) for construction of a Church with subsidiary buildings and residence. Subsequently in 1928, the BMSC included WMMTA as joint Trustee through Indenture Ex.PW5/9 and the portion coloured red in the plan measuring 1.619 stood transferred to BMSC and WMMTA as joint Trustees for the purpose of erecting a new Church Building to be known as the Free Church (where the Church known as "Free Church" Diocese of Delhi, Church of North India including premises in question is situated and deceased Dhani Ram was working). Thereafter, in the year 1950, plot of land measuring 1.28 acres on Parliament Street, New Delhi, was transferred by Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) to the National Y.W.C.A. and the British and Foreign Bible Society which is apparent through the letter dated 30.11.1950 Ex.DW1/1 proved by DW1 who has proved several documents (running into 100 pages) pertaining to original area of land leased out. By virtue of SPA Ex.PW5/21, the WMMTA and MMTA delegated/nominated/appointed Rev. Suresh Kumar s/o Late Sh. Sohan Lall Presbyter Incharge of Free Church (CNITA) for protection The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 14 of 20 of property at Free Church (CNITA) and to take all appropriate and/or legal steps to protect their property from illegal occupation, construction or encroachment and to file the suit in the court particularly against the family of deceased Dhani Ram the exemployee of complainant company. Lastly, Rev. Suresh Kumar, PresbyterIncharge and Mr. Deepak Paul, Honorary Secretary of the complainant company were appointed through SPA Ex.PW5/1 to institute, pursue and contest civil/criminal case against the accused persons. Thus, the pleas of the accused persons that the chain of the title documents is missing and present complaint is not filed by the competent person, are baseless. Accused have not not disclosed as to how and which particular chain/document of title document of the property in question, is missing or who else is the owner. From the pleas of the accused, it appears that the the accused endeavoured to say that "Free Church" (which is now known as CNITA) is a separate entity and present complaint ought to have been filed on behalf of "Free Church" only. From the bare perusal of Indenture Ex.PW5/9, it is clear that "Free Church" is not a separate entity and the land over which the building of the Free Church is situated, was transferred for erecting new Church building to be known as "Free Church" and same is exclusive in control and possession of the complainant company. Accused persons can not be allowed to take advantage of such technicality. From the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the significant chain of the title documents of ownership qua the property in question has been proved by the complainant and present complaint is duly filed by the competent person.
The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 15 of 20
21.Furthermore, the question of ownership is not at all required to be gone into the proceedings of section 630 of Companies Act. As per section 116 of Evidence Act neither the tenant nor the licensee can be allowed to challenge the title of their landlord/licensor. The provisions of Section 116 of Evidence Act reads as under: Section 116 "Estoppal of tenant; and of licensee of 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 property 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 such licence was given"
As held in "Bilas Kunwar vs Desraj Ranjit Singh, AIR 1995 Privy Council at p.98".
"A tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlords title, however, defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord".
The estoppal u/s 116 is applicable upon the tenant as well as licensee. In this regard this court is supported by the law laid down in "Krishna Prasad Lal vs Barabani Coal Concern Ltd, AIR 1937 P.C. 251". In regard to the provisions of 116 of Evidence Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in the case of "Bansraj Laltaprasd Mistra vs Stanley Parker Jones, AIR 2006 SC 3569 : 2006 AIR SCW 1073".
"14..... a person who comes upon any immovable property by the license of the person in possession thereof, shall not be permitted to deny such person and title of such possession at the time when such The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 16 of 20 license was given".
In view of the aforesaid discussions it is held that the complainant company is the owner of the quarter in question.
22.(i) The complainant company was further required to establish on record that deceased Dhani Ram was an employee of the complainant company and quarter in question was given to him by virtue of his employment. Accused have denied that late Sh. Dhani Ram was employee of the complainant company. It is contended that complainant company came into existence in the year 1995 while late Sh. Dhani Ram was employed in the year 1967 and the complainant company has not filed any document on record to show that late Sh. Dhani Ram Joined the complainant company and from the the salary register Ex.PW5/14 it is also apparent that salary was being paid to late Sh. Dhani Ram by "Free Church" and not by the complainant company.
(ii) However, this plea of the accused does not have any force. In his statement, PW1 has proved on record letter of employment Ex.PW5/13 of deceased Dhani Ram which was issued by Honorary Secretary "Free Church"
which is managed and run jointly by MMTA and WMMTA at the relevant time.
Bare perusal of letter of employmentcumallotment of premises in question Ex.PW5/13 clearly shows that deceased Dhani Ram was offered temporary employment for a period of 11 months. By virtue of this letter Ex.PW5/13, deceased Dhani Ram was also provided with a free quarter consisting of one room and verandah only at 10, Jantar Mandar Road, with free light and water The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 17 of 20 with the condition that on the date of termination of his appointment, he will vacate the said quarter. In their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, all accused persons admitted that deceased Dhani Ram was employed with Free Church but they denied that said said "Free Church" was jointly managed and run by MMTA and WMMTA at the relevant time. However, this plea of the accused persons does not hold much water as accused have not disclosed as to who is/was owner or through whom "Free Church" is/was being run/managed at the relevant time if same is/was not run and managed jointly by MMTA and WMMTA at the relevant time.
(iii) As discussed above, it has already been held that "Free Church"
is not a separate entity and the land over which the building of the Free Church is situated, was stood transferred through Indenture Ex.PW5/9 in favour of MMTA and WMMTA jointly for erecting new Church building to be known as "Free Church" and same is now exclusive in control and possession of the complainant company. From the document i.e letter of employmentcum allotment of quarter Ex.PW5/13, it is also clear that quarter in question was provided to deceased Dhani Ram by virtue of his employment with the condition that he will retain/occupy the said quarter so long as he will remain in the service of the complainant and after cessation of service he has to vacate the said quarter. This fact has also not been denied by the accused persons. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that that the relationship of employer and employee with the complainant company stands proved. It is also held that quarter in question was provided to deceased Dhani Ram by The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 18 of 20 virtue of his employment only.
23.Now let us examine whether complainant company has established that accused persons are wrongfully withholding the quarter in question. From the document Ex.PW5/13 it is clear that deceased Dhani Ram was to remain in possession of the quarter till he was in the services of the company and after cessation of his service he was to vacate. Admittedly, deceased Dhani Ram expired on 27.02.2008 and thus his service with the complainant company came to an end. As such legal heirs/accused persons were/are under obligation to vacate the quarter in question allotted to deceased Dhani Ram. The complainant has also proved on record one letter dated 15.04.2008 Ex.PW5/17 written by accused no.1 which clearly shows that after death of deceased Dhani Ram, accused no.1 made a request to the complainant company to appoint one of her sons on compassionate ground. As per letter Ex.PW5/18, a meeting was held on 17.05.2008 which was attended by the accused no.1, 5, 6 and 7 as well as members of the Church and Pastorate Committee of the complainant company. In the said meeting, application Ex.PW5/17 made by the accused no.1 for appointment of one of her sons was rejected. Thus, accused persons were under obligation to vacate the said quarter. Accused did not deny that they are still in possession of the quarter in question. Since, accused did not vacate and hand over the possession of the quarter in question after cessation of service of deceased Dhani Ram, it is held that accused persons have been wrongfully withholding the quarter in question after death and cessation of service of deceased Dhani Ram. The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 19 of 20
24.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that complainant has been able to establish that deceased Dhani Ram was allotted the aforesaid quarter by virtue of his employment. It is further held that the service of the deceased Dhani Ram with the complainant company came to an end after his demise on 27.02.2008 and accused persons being his legal heirs have failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the quarter in dispute to the complainant after cessation of service of deceased Dhani Ram. In such, circumstances it is held that accused persons are wrongfully withholding the quarter of the complainant company after death and cessation of service of deceased Dhani Ram. Thus, it is held that complainant has been successful in proving its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all these accused persons are held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 630 of the Companies Act 1956. Let accused be heard on sentence on 19.02.2015. Judgment be sent to the server www.delhidistrictcourt.nic.in.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA) ACMM(Special Acts) CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI Announced in open court on 12th February, 2015 (Total number of page 19) (One spare copy attached) The Church North India Trust Association vs. Phoolwati etc CC No.3076/3 20 of 20