Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (4) TMI 405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llottee was liable to vacate the quarters and hand over the same to the respondent. By this common judgment, Criminal Revisions Nos. 816 of 1996 and 817 of 1996, can conveniently be disposed of together because all the petitioners are aggrieved by a similar order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and dismissal of the appeals by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Hissar. It has been contended by the respondent that the petitioners were employed in the company in the unit known as Hissar Textile Mills. Each of them had been allotted a quarter. The allotment was made during the course of the employment of the petitioners. There were certain unavoidable circumstances which were beyond the control of the respondent-company. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. The trial court held that even being ex-employees or workers of the respondent-mill/company, they were liable to vacate the property. In these circumstances, the learned trial court allowed the petition and directed the petitioners to vacate the quarters within 30 days. The petitioners had preferred an appeal but the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find favour with the contentions raised. The appeal was dismissed. The first and foremost question agitated on behalf of the petitioners was that they were tenants in the property and not licensees. In this regard reliance is being placed on the fact that in the receipts the expression "rent" had been used and that rent would only be paid by a tenant. Therefore, the petitioners m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ird edition, Vol. 23) at pages 536-537. Hence, the use of the term 'rent' cannot preclude the landlord from pleading that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The question must, therefore, depend upon whether or not there was a relationship of landlord and tenant in the sense that there was a transfer of interest by the landlord in favour of the tenant." Similarly, in the case of Konchada Ramamurty Subudhi v. Gopinath Naik, AIR 1968 SC 919, the same question was considered and it was held that it is the intention of the parties which is the determining factor as to if a person is a tenant or a licensee. At this stage, reference with advantage may be made further to the decision in the case of Sardar Bhagwant Singh v. S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by this Act; he shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. (2) 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." A perusal of the same indicates that no distinction had been made by the Legislature pertaining to an employee or an ex-employee. Further discussion becomes unnecessary because the matter in q .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst the petitioners. Merely because some further litigation is pending that will not permit the petitioners to take shelter under section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, till such time the findings are in their favour or it is permitted that they can take advantage of any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act that they are employees of the respondent. On this date, they cannot claim a right to continue in occupation of the property. We know from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra [1990] 68 Comp Cas 324 (SC); [1989] 4 SCC 514 that the object of section 630 of the Companies Act, is to provide speedy relief to the company when the property has wrongfully been withheld by an employee or ex-emp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates