SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 406

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA , JJ.
Mrs. Winifred Ross and another, Appellants
Versus
Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1796 off 1982
Decided on 7-12-1983.
 
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocate and M/s C. N. Murty and R. Vasudevan, Advocates with him, for Appellants; Mr. T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Nagaratnam, Advocate with him, for Respondent No. 1.
* Spl. Civil April. No. 3025 of 1978, D/- 24-4-1981 (Bom.).

Advocates:
C.N.MURTHY, G.L.SANGHI, R.NAGARATNAM, R.V.PILLAI, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER

An ex-member of the armed forces cannot invoke Section 13A1 of the Bombay Rents Act to recover property acquired post-retirement, ensuring the provision's intended protection against misuse.

Headnote:

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 13-A1 and 13 (1) (g) – Acquired building – Possession - Retired from the Armed Forces - Plaintiff was formerly serving as a member of Indian Army and he retired from military service in year - Property of which suit building forms a part originally belonged to his mother-in-law - She gifted said property in favour of her daughter, wife of plaintiff - Property consisted of some out-houses - Defendant has been a tenant in one of those out-houses for a number of years - Said premises consisted of two rooms and a verandah - On gifted portion in which the defendant was residing as a tenant in favour of the plaintiff - A landlord, who is a member of the Armed Forces of Union, or who was such member and is duly retired (which term shall include premature retirement) shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises, on ground that premises are bona fide required by him for occupation by himself or any member of his family (which term shall include a parent or other relation ordinarily residing with him and dependent on him); and Court shall pass a decree for eviction on such ground if landlord - Held, it has to be read down as conferring benefit only on those members of Armed Forces who were landlords of premises in question while they were in service even though they may avail of it after their retirement - Such a construction would save it from criticisum that it is discriminatory and also would advance object of enacting it, namely that members of Armed Forces should not while they are in service feel worried about difficulties of a long drawn out litigation when they wish to get back premises which they have leased out during their service - Court however, wish to clarify that in this case Court express no opinion on question whether a member or a retired member of armed forces who acquires title to a building which is already in occupation of a tenant by inheritance, partition, transfer or otherwise and thus becomes landlord of building while he is a member of the armed forces, can avail of remedy against such tenant - Plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in view of clear finding recorded by the High Court. We have gone through reasons given by High Court to reverse decision of District Court on above questiont - Cou agree that the plaintiff has not established that he was really in need of building - Finding of High Court on this question also does not call for any interference - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :—The principal question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether a person who was formerly a member of the Armed Forces can recover possession of a building which was acquired by him after he had retired from the Armed Forces under S. 13-A1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act No. 57 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for occupation by himself or any member of his family.

2. The plaintiff Lt. Col. T. E. Ross was formerly serving as a member of the Indian Army and he retired from the military service in the year 1967. The property of which the suit building forms a part originally belonged to his mother-in-law, Mrs. Arcene Parera. She gifted the said property in favour of her daughter, Mrs. Winifred Ross, the wife of the plaintiff on Nov. 9, 1976. The property consisted of some out-houses. The defendant has been a tenant in one of those out-houses for a number of years. The said premises consisted of two rooms and a verandah. On June 6, 1977, Mrs. Winifred Ross gifted the portion in which the defendant was residing as a tenant in favour of the plaintiff. The remaining part of the property acquired under the gift deed executed by the mother-in-law of the plaintiff continued in the occupation of Mrs. Winifred Ross. The gift of only the portion of the property in the occupation of the defendant appears to have been made with the object of taking advantage of Sec. 13-A1 of the Act which was introduced by way of an amendment of the Act in 1975. section 13-A1 of the Act reads thus :

"13-A1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act (a) a landlord, who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, or who was such member and is duly retired (which term shall include premature retirement) shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises, on the ground that the premises are bona fide required by him for occupation by himself or any member of his family (which term shall include a parent or other relation ordinarily residing with him and dependent on him); and the Court shall pass a decree for eviction on such ground if the landlord, at the hearing of the suit, produces a certificate signed by the Head of his Service or his Commanding Officer to the affect that -

(i) he is presently a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or he was such member and is now a retired ex-serviceman;

(ii) he does not possess any other suitable residence in the local area where he or the members of his family can reside;

(b) where a member of the Armed Forces of the Union dies while in service or such member is duly retired as stated above and dies within five years of his retirement, his widow, who is or becomes a landlord of any premises, shall be entitled to recover possession of such premises, on the ground that the premises are bona fide required by her for occupation by herself or any member of her family (which term shall include her or her husbands parent or other relation ordinarily residing with her); and the Court shall pass a decree for eviction on such ground, if such widow, at the hearing of the suit, produces a certificate signed by the Area or Sub-Area Commander within whose jurisdiction the premises are situated to the effect that -

(i) she is a widow of a deceased member of the Armed Forces as aforesaid;

(ii) she does not possess any other suitable residence in the local area where she or the members of her family can reside.

Explanation 1.- For the purposes of clause (a) of this section, the expression "the Head of his Service", in the case of officers retired from the Indian Army includes the Area Commander, in the case of officers retired from the Indian Navy includes the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Naval Command, and in the case of officers retired from the Indian Air Force includes the Station Commander.

Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, any certificate granted thereunder shall be conclusive evidence of the fa



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top