Special eviction remedy for armed forces landlords cannot extend to property acquired after retirement; bona fide need also failed.

Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act was confined to armed forces personnel who were already landlords of the premises during service, so a person who acquired the property only after retirement could not invoke the special eviction remedy. That interpretation preserved the provision's legislative purpose and avoided extending it beyond its object. The alternative eviction ground of bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) also failed because the record supported the finding that genuine need was not established. The special statutory claim was unavailable, and the dismissal of the suit and appeal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a retired member of the armed forces who acquired the premises only after retirement could maintain a claim for eviction under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the landlord had established bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether a retired member of the armed forces who acquired the premises only after retirement could maintain a claim for eviction under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 13A(1) was enacted as a special protection for serving or retired armed forces personnel who had leased out premises during their service and who later needed to recover them for personal or family occupation. A construction allowing a person to acquire a tenanted building after retirement and then use the special provision would extend the section beyond its object and create serious inequality concerns. To preserve the validity of the provision and keep it aligned with the legislative purpose, the section had to be confined to landlords who were already landlords while in service, though they might seek possession after retirement.

Conclusion: The claim under Section 13A(1) was not maintainable, and the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord had established bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: The High Court's finding on need was examined and found to be supported by the record. The plaintiff had not established genuine and bona fide need for the premises, and no basis was found to disturb that conclusion in appellate review.

Conclusion: The plea of bona fide requirement failed, and the finding was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The special statutory eviction claim was unavailable to the appellant, and the alternative ground of bona fide requirement was also not made out, leaving the dismissal of the suit and appeal intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 13A(1) must be read down to apply only where the landlord was already a landlord of the premises while serving in the armed forces, so that the special eviction remedy is not extended to premises acquired only after retirement.

---