Case: Shivram Anand Shiroor Vs. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik and Another

The appellant in this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union from August, 1942 until August 17, 1970 when he retired from the Army, In 1964, he became the owner of a flat in a co-operative society in Tardeo Bombay having inherited the same from his brother. The respondent was already the tenant of the premises when the appellant inherited it as the owner. Soon after his retirement, the appellant filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent on the grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide personal requirement and unlawful submitting. This was in 1971. While the suit was still pending, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Central Act, 1947 was amended in 1975 by the introduction of sec. 13 A-1. This was a special provision aimed at enabling a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a retired members of the said Armed Forces to recover possession of premises bona fide required by him for his occupation or the occupation of members of his family on the production of a certificate from the Head of the Service or the Commanding Officer. The certificate was to specify that the individual concerned was presently a member of the armed forces of the Union or that he was such a member and was now a retired ex-serviceman and that he did not possess any other suitable residence in the local area wherever he or any member of his family could reside. It was further provided that the certificate was to be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein An important distinction between the general provision contained in Section 13 (1) (g) and the special provision Section 13 A-1 is that under the special provision a tenant is disabled from taking advantage of Section 13 (2) which provides that no decree for eviction shall be passed on the ground specified in Section 13 (I) (g) if the court is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. The appellant, therefore, preferred to file a fresh suit for eviction of the respondent under Section 13 A-1 of the Bombay Rent Act rather than pursue the suit filed in 1971. He filed a fresh suit under the new provision. He produced the certificate require d to be produced under Section 13 A-1. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the Appellant bona fide required the flat for his own occupation and decreed the suit. The tenant moved the High Court of Bombay under Art. 227 of the Constitution A learned single Judge of the High Court, while not interfering with the concurrent finding of the subordinate tribunals that the landlord bona fide require the premises for his own occupation, nevertheless set a side the decree for eviction on the ground that Section 13 A-1 did not enable a member or a retired member of the armed forces to seek the remedy provided by Section 13 A-1 of the Bombay Rent Act if the premises were already in the occupation o f the tenant when he became the landlord has appealed under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

Reasoning: But we find it impossible on the plain language of Section 13 A-1 to further read down the provision as enabling a member or a retired member of the armed forces to recover possession of the premises only if he had himself originally let out the premises when he was a member of the armed forces and not if the tenancy had commenced before he became the landlord of the premises either by inheritance, partition, or any other made of transfer of property. To place such an interpretation would be to virtually rewrite the provision. The language of Section 13 A-1 which is sufficiently plain does not warrant or invite such an interpretation. Nor is there anything elsewhere in the Act which compel s such a construction. The statement of object and reasons was read to us. ItServices Personnel are liable to transfers and to be stationed in different parts of the country. They are often posted at non-family stations. Some of these personnel, who possess their own premises either in their home towns or elsewhere have necessarily to hire them out to other persons temporarily while they are away on duty. It has been represented to the State Government by the military authorities that on their retirement or transfer to non-family stations the serving and ex-service personnel find it extremely difficult to regain possession of their premises which they badly require for personal occupation permanently or for housing their families for the duration of their posting at non-family stations. In case of death of a service personnel while in service or death of ex-service personnel shortly after the retirement, the widow also finds it extremely difficult to regain possession of their premises for her personal occupation or occupation of her family.The case of Defence Services Personnel due to their special obligations and disabilities do need different treatment from that accorded to other landlords and in fact special provisions have been made for them i n some of the States, whereby processes for each personnel to regain possession of their premises have been simplified and made more effective.It is considered necessary to make a special provision in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to enable a member or retired member of the armed forces of the Union or a widow of such a member who dies while in service, or who dies within five years of his retirement, to regain possession of their premises, when bona fide required for occupation by them or members of their families and to provide that the Court shall be bound to pass a decree for eviction on such ground if such member or widow, as landlord, produces, at the hearing of the suit, the necessary certificate signed by the Head of his Service or His Commanding officer or the Area or Sub-Area Commander within whose Jurisdiction the premises are situated.The Bill intended to achieve thesewas said that the use of the words regain possession in the statement of objects and Reasons indicated that the member of the armed forces must have himself given possession, that is, he must have himself let the tenant into possession. We cannot read so much into the Statement of object and Reasons and into the Statute, via the Statement of objects and Reasons. The words regain possession in the context, are merely meant to convey obtain possession. To our mind, the intention of the legislature is expressed with sufficient clarity by the language of Section 13 A-1 and there is nothing either in the Statute or in the Statute or in the Statement of objects and Reasons to suggest that the intention of the legislature was other than what we have said. We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore those of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. The parties will bear their respective costs. The respondents are given time till 30th September, 1984 to vacate the premises subject to their filing within four weeks from today an undertaking which shall be in the form usually adopted in the Court.