1983 (12) TMI 329 - SC - Indian Laws

Court denies appeal for possession by retired armed forces member under Bombay Rents Act

Mrs Winifred Ross And Anr. Versus Mrs Ivy Fonseca And Ors.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision that the retired armed forces member could not recover possession under Section 13A(1) of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a retired member of the armed forces can recover possession of a building acquired after retirement under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.2. Whether the plaintiff's requirement for the premises was bona fide under Section 13(1)(g) of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Recovery of Possession Under Section 13A(1) of the Act:The principal question for consideration was whether a retired member of the armed forces could recover possession of a building acquired after retirement under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The plaintiff, Lt. Col. T.E. Ross, retired from the Indian Army in 1967 and acquired the suit premises in 1977 through a gift from his wife. The property was leased to the defendant, and the plaintiff sought eviction under Section 13A(1) of the Act, which allows armed forces personnel or their widows to recover possession of premises for bona fide occupation.The court analyzed the object and purpose of Section 13A(1) as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons annexed to the amending Bill. The provision was intended to help serving and retired defense personnel regain possession of their premises leased out during service. The court concluded that Section 13A(1) was meant for those who were landlords while in service and not for those who acquired property post-retirement. A liberal interpretation allowing retired personnel to acquire property and evict tenants would lead to potential misuse and discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.The court endorsed the view from the case of Sushilabai Vasudeo Jaeel and Ors. v. M.S. Dhillon and Ors., where it was held that Section 13A(1) did not apply to those who retired long back and were gainfully employed elsewhere. Similarly, in Jyotish Ranjan Chakrabarti v. N.K. Mitra, the Calcutta High Court held that a retired armed forces member who acquired property post-retirement could not claim the benefit of the analogous Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.The court also distinguished the present case from the decisions in Nihal Chand v. Kalyan Chand Jain and B.N. Mutto and Anr. v. T.K. Nandi, which dealt with Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Those cases involved government servants required to vacate government-allotted premises due to owning other accommodation. The court found no ground to extend Section 13A(1) to all retired armed forces members irrespective of their landlord status during service.The court concluded that Section 13A(1) should be read down to apply only to those who were landlords while in service, thus avoiding constitutional challenges and fulfilling the provision's objective. Consequently, the plaintiff, who acquired the property post-retirement, could not maintain the suit under Section 13A(1).2. Bona Fide Requirement Under Section 13(1)(g) of the Act:The court also examined whether the plaintiff's requirement for the premises was bona fide under Section 13(1)(g) of the Act. The High Court had found that the plaintiff's need for the premises was not genuine. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's reasoning and agreed that the plaintiff failed to establish a bona fide need for the building. Therefore, the plaintiff could not succeed on this ground either.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the plaintiff could not recover possession under Section 13A(1) of the Act as he acquired the property post-retirement, and his requirement was not bona fide under Section 13(1)(g). No costs were awarded.