LexMRS. WINIFRED ROSS & ANR. versus MRS. IVY FONSECA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
•
..
1005
MRS. WINIFRED ROSS & ANR.
v.
MRS. IVY FONSECA & ORS.
.
. .
December 7, 1983
[E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.]
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control. Act, 1947-
S. 13Al--Whether On ex-_member of armed.forces who acquires title to prope.rty
A
n
aft'er hi$ retiren1en1 is enfitled to recover possession. fron1 tenant under
C
s.13Al?
.
.
The plaint_iff who was a inember of the armed forces of ·the UnioQ -had -
retired from service in 1967. The· suit property ·was a part ·of the property
gifted by. his mother-in-18.w to his wife ·in 1976, which ill tu·r·n had been· gifted
in his favour in 1977, probably with the object of ta~ing advantage. of s. 13Al
of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House R'ates ·Control Act, 1947
which had been introduced iii the Act by way of an amendment made: in· 1975.
The p18inti'ff filed the· suit under s.13A1 for recovery of possession or' the suit
property.from the defend1;1nt who had been occupying the same· for a number
of years and in the course of the suif produced a certificate issued by the Army
Officer concerned as required by that ~cction The suit wa·s .decreid by the
trial court and the defendant's appeal against the same was turned down by·
the District. Judge whereup0n the· defendant filed· a petition under Arts. 226
and 227 of the.Constitution which was allowed. The High Court dismissed
the suit for eviction holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to. file the suit·
under ·s.13Al as he had acquired the premises Jong after he· had retired from
service and that bis requirement was not bona fide even for purposes· of grant~
ing relief under s.· 13(1) (g).
Dismissing the 3.ppeal,
HELD : Section 13Al of·the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
~ates Contror Act, 1947 has been introduc~d i~ the Act to. ena~le members of
the armed forces who ha~e leased out their buildings when they are in service
to recover quickly possession of such buildings without the restrictions contai-
ned in the. othef parts Of the Act, either when they are still i.n service, or .on
their retirement, for their use and occUpation or for the use and occupation of
the members of thefr family.
An an8.Jysis of cJ. (a) of s.13Al shows that the
person who wishes to claim the benefit of that section sbOuld be a landlord Or
the premises While he is a member of the armed follCes of the Union and ihat
he may recover possession of the premises on the ground that the premises are
bona fide required by him for occupation by himself or any member of his
·family on the Production of the.required certificate either while he is still in"'
service or after his retirement." The essential, requirement is that he should
have teased out the building while he was a member of the armed forces. His
D
E
G '
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1984] I s.c.R.
widow can also recover the premises of which she is or has become· the Jarid·
lord. under cl. (b) subject to fulfilment of tbc cor:ditions. Having regard to
the object and purposes _of the Act and in particular of s.13Al it is difficult to
hold that s.13A l can .be availed of by an ex-member of the armed forces to
recover from a tenant possession of a· ~uilding which.he acquires afler his
retirement. [JOJIB-D'j
A liberal construction of s.13~1 would epable unscrtlpulOus ·landlords
who cannot get rid of tenants to transfer tl1cir pre1nises to ex-military men, as
it has been done in this case, in order to avil of the benefit of the provision
. With a private arrangement between them. Since such an inte'rpretation is
Jike~y to expose the provision to a successful Challenge under. Art. 14 of the
Constitution it has to be read down as conferring benefit only on those
members of the.armed fo~ces who were landlords of the premises in ·question
while they ·were in service even though they n1ay avail of it 3.fter their
retirement. . [l012B; 10140-H]
{The .Court refrained from expressing any op1n1on on the question
whether a member or ·a retired member of the armed forces who acquires
title to a building which is already in the occupation of a tenant by i"nheritancC,
partition, transfer or otherwise and thus becomes the landlord of the building
while he is a metnber of the armed forCes, can avail of. the rcn1edy ar.ainst such
tenant under s. 13ALJ [1015C-DJ
.
Sushi/a Bai Vasudev Jaee/ v. M. S. Dhillon [l979J Maharashtra Law
Journal 125; and Jyotish Ranjan ChakrExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.