Wrongful retention of company premises by ex-employee remains actionable under section 630 despite tenancy claims and limitation objections.

Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides a special summary remedy against a present or former employee who wrongfully withholds company premises after cessation of service, and that remedy is not displaced by tenancy claims under the Bombay Rent Act where the occupation originated in employment. Wrongful retention of company property after termination is treated as a continuing offence, so limitation runs while the withholding continues under section 472 of the CrPC. On that reasoning, the acquittal was reversed, conviction under section 630 was sustained, and delivery of possession with consequential penal directions was ordered.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a company can invoke section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 against a former employee who continues to occupy company premises and claims tenancy protection under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; (ii) whether the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation; and (iii) whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused and whether the accused was liable to conviction and consequential delivery of possession.

Issue (i): whether a company can invoke section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 against a former employee who continues to occupy company premises and claims tenancy protection under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

Analysis: The occupation of the premises arose from the employment relationship and was intended to subsist only during service. Even assuming the arrangement created a tenancy, the Court held that section 13(1)(f) and section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act do not oust the special remedy under section 630. The two enactments operate in different but concurrent fields, and the special summary remedy under the Companies Act is not rendered ineffective by the rent legislation. The statutory scheme was read harmoniously, with section 630 treated as a special provision meant to prevent wrongful retention of company premises by service occupiers after cessation of employment.

Conclusion: The prosecution under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was maintainable and the tenancy defence did not bar conviction.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation

Analysis: The Court treated wrongful withholding of company property after termination of service as a continuing offence. On that footing, section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied and a fresh period of limitation continued to run so long as the wrongful withholding persisted. The offence was therefore not confined to a single completed act occurring on the date of retirement.

Conclusion: The complaint was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused and whether the accused was liable to conviction and consequential delivery of possession

Analysis: The trial court's view that the accused's status as a tenant defeated section 630 was held to be perverse and contrary to the purpose of the provision. The Court found that the accused was inducted into the premises because of his employment, ceased to be in service, and continued to withhold the company's property without authority. The Court also held that the discretion under section 630(2) could be exercised to direct delivery of possession and that a limited period for compliance was appropriate in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused was convicted under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, and directions for fine and delivery of possession were issued against him.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the acquittal was reversed, and the accused's continued occupation of the company premises was held punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, with consequential penal and restitutionary directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 is a special summary remedy against a present or former employee who wrongfully withholds company property after cessation of service, and it is not barred by tenancy claims or the general eviction machinery under the Bombay Rent Act where the occupation originated in employment and the withholding continues after termination.

---