Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.L. Dudhat, J.
Lt. Col. Ravindranath H. Hiramath.... Petitioner.
Versus
Prashantkumar Buttan.... Respondent.
Civil Revision Application No. 459 of 1992, decided on 6-4-1994.
Advocates appeared :
B.P. Apte, for petitioner.
S.G. Surana with L.T. Dokharkar, for respondent.
If one reads Section 6 as a whole and construe Section 6 (4) in the background of earlier sub-sections of Section 6 it appears that the Legislature intended to exclude the applicability of Part II of the Bombay Rent Act to the premises given by the landlord referred to in Section 13 (2) on or after the commencement of the amendment which came into force on October, 1, 1987, meaning thereby that the premises given by the landlord referred to in Section 13 (2) and Part II-A from October 1, 1987. By applying the rules of harmoneous construction to Section 6 (4) and Section 13-A-2 it does not stand to reason to exclude premises given on licence even if given prior to October 1, 1987, if in fact the said licence continues to be in existence on or after October 1, 1987.
Ordinarily, the words used in a statute have to be construed in their ordinary meaning but there are cases where judicial approach finds that the simple device of adopting the ordinary meaning of words does not meet the ends of a fair and a reasonable construction. Exclusive reliance on the bare dictionary meaning of words may not necessarily assist a proper construction of the statutory provision in which those words occur. Very often, in interpreting a statutory provision, it becomes essential to have regard to the subject matter of the statute and the object which it is intended to achieves, That is the reason why to deciding the true scope and effect of the relevant words, the context in which the words occur, the object of the statute in which the provision is included, and the policy underlying the statute become relevant and material. From the statement of objects and reasons it is clear that keeping in view the increasing shortage of housing and keeping in view that the owners keep their flats vacant and do not give them on licence out of a fear that the licensee may claim tenancy the amendment was introduced. On fair reading of Section 13-A-2 is also becomes clear that the legislature intended to bring all the licences which were in existence after October 1, 1987 within the ambit of Section 13-A-2. Section 13-A-2 being a substantive provision intending to cover all the licences in existence on and after October 1, 1987 by applying the doctrine of harmoneous construction as aforesaid and the ratio of the Supreme Court to the aforesaid Section 6 (4) in respect of licences in existence on or after October 1, 1987 Part II-A of the Bombay Rent Act and no Part II shall be made applicable. Mr. Dhakephalkar the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the licensee further argued that the amendment introduced on October 1, 1987 cannot be made applicable retrospectively unless there is a specific provision to that effect, and since there is no specific provision in Section 13-A-2 for applying the said provision retrospectively the licence agreement entered into prior to October l. 1987 is not covered by the said amendment. According to court opinion, there is no substance in this argument. The reason being that the phraseology used in Section 13-A-2 is "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a licensee in possession or occupation of premises given to him on licence for residence." and that clearly indicates that the Legislature intends to bring the licences which were in existence on or after October 1, 1987. The question is as to whether on the date of the amendment the licensee under the existing agreement was in possession of the residential premises given to him by the licensor. Once this condition is fulfilled, according to court opinion, it is not relevant as to whether the agreement creating licence was entered into prior to October 1, 1987 or after October 1, 1987. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of Section 13-A-2, Clause 1 retrospectively.
STATUTES
Interpretation of-For deciding true scope and effect of relevant words, context in which they occur, object of statute in which provision included and, policy, underlying statute become relevant and material.
2. The present petitioner has filed this civil revision application against the judgment order, dated May 30, 1992, passed by the Competent Authority, Division Pune, in M.A. No. 5 of 1992. By the aforesaid judgment and order the competent authority dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner on the ground that the competent authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application and also on the ground that the petitioner is a tenant-member of the Society and such a tenant-member of the Society is excluded from the ambit of section 13-A-2 of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner in this case is a tenant-member of the Tridal Nagar Co-op. Housing Society in respect of flat No. 5 in building No. A-1 which is duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner is the member of Arm Force and at the relevant time he was required to go to North East Frontier area where he was posted. Since the respondent required residential accommodation for temporary purpose, the same was given by the present petitioner to the respondent vide agreement dated January 31, 1987. The said agreement was to come to an end on December 31, 1987. In the mean time there was amendment to the Bombay Rent Act and section 13-A-2 was introduced on October 1, 1987 to enable the landlords to recover the possession of the premises given on licence after the expiry of the said licence.
3. After expiry of the said licence on October 7, 1991 the petitioner gave notice to the respondent-licensee terminating his licence. Thereafter the petitioner preferred the present application under section 13-A-2 of the Bombay Rent Act. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the suit premises were given on licence which is covered under section 13-A-2 of the Bombay Rent Act. It was further contended on behalf of the present petitioner that the said licence was terminated vide notice dated October 7, 1991 and the respondent refused to hand over the possession of the said suit flat. Therefore the application was made by the present petitioner to the competent authority under the provisions of section 31-B of the Bombay Rent Act. It was contended before the competent authority on behalf of the respondent that the provisions of section 13-A-2 are not applicable to the licence which was created prior to October 1, 1987 and also that the provisions of section 13-A-2 are not applicable to the tenant-member being the tenant of the Society. After allowing both the parties to lead evidence the competent authority held that the competent authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said application and also held that the applicant being a tenant-member of Tridal Nagar Co-op. Housing Society i.e. not being the owner, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the application in view of section 13-A-2 of the Bombay Rent Act. In view of the aforesaid finding the competent authority dismissed the application preferred by the present petitioner. It appears that the competent authority came to the conclusion that the amendment of 1987 is applicable to the licences created on October 1, 1987 and thereafter, and the amendment is not applicable in respect of the licences created prior to October 1, 1987. In this civil revision application as well as in the other three abovementioned civil revision applications there is a common question of law involved to the effect that whether in case of licence created prior to October 1, 1987 the amendment more particularly the provisions of section 13-A-2 are attracted or not. Mr. B.P. Apte, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of se
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
