Company quarters after dismissal and curable authorisation defects under section 630 led to liability for wrongful possession.

A complaint challenging company quarters occupation was held maintainable because the senior personnel officer had authority to sign and present it, and any initial defect was a curable irregularity once the company ratified the act without showing prejudice. Continued occupation of company quarters after valid dismissal was treated as wrongful possession linked to employment and within the scope of section 630. The text records that the respondent was held guilty under that provision, while also stating that the trial court conviction was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act was maintainable when filed by the senior personnel officer on the company's behalf; (ii) Whether the respondent, after dismissal from service, was in unlawful possession of the company quarters and liable under section 630 of the Companies Act.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act was maintainable when filed by the senior personnel officer on the company's behalf.

Analysis: The authority letter and subsequent ratification by the company showed that the senior personnel officer was empowered to present and sign the complaint. Even if there had been any defect in the initial authorisation, it was a curable irregularity and no prejudice or failure of justice was shown. The complaint could not be rejected merely on a technical objection to competence.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent, after dismissal from service, was in unlawful possession of the company quarters and liable under section 630 of the Companies Act.

Analysis: Once the dismissal order stood upheld, the respondent could not claim continuation in service or retain the official quarters allotted only by virtue of employment. The continued occupation of the quarters after cessation of service constituted wrongful possession within the scope of section 630.

Conclusion: The respondent was liable under section 630 of the Companies Act.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the trial court was set aside, the respondent was held guilty under section 630 of the Companies Act, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A company complaint under section 630 is not defeated by a technical defect in the complainant's initial authorisation where the company has ratified the act and no prejudice is shown, and an employee who continues to occupy company quarters after valid dismissal is liable for wrongful possession under that provision.

---