Judgment:
B.C. Ray and; M.H. Kania, JJ.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed on 22-8-1984 dismissing the criminal writ petition and criminal application by the High Court. The appellant Company filed a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Magistrate's Court on the ground that Respondent 1 was provided with a Company's flat at Colaba, Bombay for residing there while he was in employment of the Company. It is the Company's case that they took as a licensee the said flat from the owner on the basis of a paying guest agreement and permitted Respondent 1 to stay therein. Respondent 1 after termination of his service in 1979 refused to vacate the flat and hence the Company filed the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act for eviction of Respondent 1 from the said flat and for taking possession of the flat and for punishing Respondent 1.
2. The Magistrate after hearing the parties passed an order for eviction of Respondent 1 from the said flat and also convicted Respondent 1.
3. Against this judgment an appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and order of the Magistrate. Against that an appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal taking the view that the basic questions involved were whether the Company could be said to be a tenant of the said flat as contemplated under the Bombay. Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 and whether after the written agreement of licence in favour of the Company has expired, it could be said that the Company was a licensee of the said flat. The court took the view that both these questions were complicated questions of civil law and hence the Magistrate's Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same. The High Court felt that the disputes raised by the respondent herein were bona fide disputes. Before us it has not been disputed that this view of the High Court was correct as far as the question whether the Company could be held to be a tenant of the flat is concerned. As far as the question of implied licence in favour of the Company is concerned, that also, in our view, is a question which require to be determined by civil court and cannot be determined by a Magistrate's Court in a proceeding under Section 630 of the Companies Act. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Both the aforesaid questions are left open to be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. We may, however, point out that if there are any observations in the judgment of the High Court to the effect that after a written agreement of licence comes to an end there cannot be an implied licence, they may not be taken as laying down the correct law.