IMPORTANT POINT
Major relations of the Military Personnel, who has stood retired from the service (but is alive) are not entitled to the benefit of special procedure prescribed by Section 29B for the recovery of possession u/s. 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Headnote:West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956-Sections 13(1)(ff) and 29B -Special procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement u/s 13(1)(ff)-Appellants are major daughters residing with their father and are dependent on him-Father retiring from Armed Forces in March, 1955-In September 1955 appellants filing petition u/s. 13(1)(ff) r/w Section 29B against respondent-High Court holding it was not maintainable as father of appellants having retired was not a member of Military Services on the date of initiation of eviction proceedings - Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether High Court is right in construction of Section 29B ? (No). (Paras 10 and 12)-Whether High Court is right in its conclusion that petition u/s. 13(1)(ff) r/w Section 29B was not maintainable? (Yes)-Result-Appeal dismissed but for different reasons.
       Held : We do not agree with the construction placed by the High Court on the relevant part of Section 29B which is under consideration. A relation, who is a dependent and also jointly residing with member of naval, military or air force of the Union of India would hardly have an occasion or need to initiate proceedings for eviction so long as such member is alive and in service. We are clearly of the opinion that a relation (dependent and jointly residing), a minor child and the widow - are such three classes as the Legislature intended to treat on a par. Our this inference and such classification into the several categories, as we have made hereinabove, finds support from proviso (a), (b) and (c). Category (ii) is dealt with by proviso (a). Category (iii) is dealt with by proviso (b). Category (iv) is dealt with by proviso (c). According to proviso (c), the certificate by the Area or Sub-Area Commander of the jurisdiction is to be issued by reference to the two sub-categories, viz.: (i) the relation and dependent as aforesaid, or (ii) the minor child or the widow, as the case may be - all referable to the deceased member and the requirement of premises being for his or her own occupation and for the occupation of his or her family. (Para 10)
       Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that real need of such landlord (as like the appellants) arises when the person, whose relation he or she is, has ceased to be in service and therefore, the provision should be so interpreted as to advance the purpose sought to be achieved by enacting the provision. We find it difficult to agree. Resort can be had to legislative intent for the purpose of interpreting a provision of law, when the language employed by the Legislature is doubtful or susceptible of meanings more than one. However, when the language is plain and explicit and does not admit of any doubtful interpretation, in that case, we cannot, by reference to an assumed legislative intent, expand the meaning of an expression employed by the Legislature and therein include such category of persons as the legislature has not chosen to do. We cannot also hold that the special procedure of Section 29B can be taken advantage of by a landlord who is a relation of a member of such service, after his retirement, within five years of the date of retirement because in our opinion, the words "while in service or within five years of retirement" qualify the preceding words "of such member who dies", and are, therefore, referable to the event of death of such member. (Para 12)
       Held, however, we agree with the High Court that the petition under Section 13(1)(ff) read with Section 29B was not maintainable, though for reason different from the one assigned by the High Court. (Para 13)
       Held further : The dismissal of this petition, needless to say, would not debar the appellants from seeking the remedy of recovery of possession from the tenant-respondent by having recourse to such other provision of law and such other Forum, as may be available to them. (Para 14)
       Held finally : The appeal is dismissed, though, without any order as to costs. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Colonel P.G. Sarcar, the father of the two appellants before us, was serving as Superintending Engineer (Civil), Selection Grade, equivalent to Colonel in the General Reserve Engineering Force, which is said to be an integral part of the Armed Forces. He retired from his post on 31st March, 1995. On 14th September, 1995, his two major daughters, who are the appellants, claiming themselves to be residing with their father and as dependent on him, initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant, the respondent before us, under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) by having recourse to summary procedure under Chapter VIA of the Act. The tenant sought for leave to defend which was denied on the ground that the application seeking leave to defend was filed beyond the time prescribed therefor. The tenant, laying challenge to the order of the Rent Controller, preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, but the same was dismissed. The Rent Controller then, treating the statement by the landlords made in the application for eviction deemed to have been admitted by the tenant, passed an order for recovery of possession of the premises. The tenant preferred a Civil Revision before the High Court, which has been allowed and in supersession of the order of the trial court, the eviction petition filed by the landlords has been directed to be dismissed. In the opinion of the High Court, the father of the two appellants, in view of his having retired, was not a member of Military Services on the date of institution of proceedings for eviction and therefore, his major daughters were not entitled to have recourse to special procedure for disposal of application for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement prescribed by Section 29B (Chapter VIA of the Act); they could have had recourse to the forum of Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the landlords have filed this appeal by special leave.

2. The short question arising for decision is, whether major relations of the military personnel, who has stood retired from the service and thereby has ceased to be a member of service, are entitled to the benefit of special procedure prescribed by Section 29B, for the recovery of possession under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act.

3. Section 13(1)(ff) and Section 29B read as under :

"S. 13. Protection of tenant against eviction.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(ff) subject to the provisions of sub-section (3-A), where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such persons is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation."

"S. 29B. Special Procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.-No Civil Court shall entertain any application by a landlord being a Government employee, and who being in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by his employer, is required by, or in pursuance of an order made by such employer, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default to incur certain obligations on the ground that he owns a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child at or near the place where he is posted for the time being, [or by a landlord who has retired, or will retire within a period of less than one year, as a member of the naval, military or air force of the Union of India, or by a landlord who is the parent or the wife of such m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 429

IMPORTANT POINTMajor relations of the Military Personnel, who has stood retired from the service (but is alive) are not entitled to the benefit of special procedure prescribed by Section 29B for the recovery of possession u/s. 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Major relations of the Military Personnel, who has stood retired from the service (but is alive) are not entitled to the benefit of special procedure prescribed by Section 29B for the recovery of possession u/s. 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.