LexSHIVRAM ANAND SHIROOR versus RADHABAI SHANTRAM KOWSHIK AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G H 7SO A-1 SHIVRAM ANAND SHIROOR v. RADHABAI SHANTRAM KOWSHIK AND ANOTHER January 31, 1984 (0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.] Bon1bay Rents llotel and Lodging House Rates Acts 1947. Seel/on 13 Member of Armed Forces-Flat i11herited while in service-On retire- ment fro1n service-Whether could eject tenant frorn flat on ground of bona fide require1nent. Interpretation of Statutes : fVords o.t statute-clear and unambiguous-No question of construction ar/Ses-Court to giPe effect to plain woids. Words and Phrases : 'regain possession'-Afeaning of. The appellant '?'as a member of the armed forces of the Union from August, 19.42 .until August 17, 1970 when he retired from the Anny. 1'1 1964, bu inherited a flat fron1 his brother. The respondent wa~ already the tenant bf the flat. Soon after retirement, he filed a suit against the respondent for ejectn1ent oa the grounds of default, sub letting and bOna fide personal requirement. While the suit was pending, the Bombay Rents, HOtcl and Lodging House Retes Control Act, }94 7 was amended in 197 5 by the introductiori of section I 3 A-1. The appellant, therefore filed a fresh suit for eviction under ~ection 13 A-1, and produced the- required certificate. The Rent Controller a1:d the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the appellant bona fide required. the flat for his own occupation and decreed the suit. The respondent-tenant moved the High Court under Article 227, and the High Court while not interfering with the concurrent finding of the subordinate tribunals that the appellant bona fide required the premises for ' } , ·.;, SHIVRAM V, R.S. X:OWSHiK 751 his own occupation, Set aside the decree for eviction on the ground that section 13 A·l did not enable a men1ber or a retired member of the armed forces to seek the remedy provided by section 13 A~l. _if the premises were already in the occupation of lhe tenant when be became the landlord while being a member of the arined forces. Allowing 'the appeal to this Court, HELD : J. (i) The Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House. Rates Control Act, 1947 is a welfare legislation designed to protect tenants from harassment and unreasonable eviction by Lai1dlords. It should, therefore be interpreted in a broad and liberal spirit so as to ·further and not to constrain the object of the Act. The exclusionary provisions in the Act should be construed strictly so as to give a wide amplitude to the principal object of the legislation and to prevent its evasiOn on deceptive grouads. But this does not mean 'that the intention of the legis!ature, expressed with sufficient vocabular cfa.rity or gathered by reference to permissible sources, may be by-passed. to. accommodate individual ver~ions of what may appear reasonable. ['T55B-D] (ii) Wher.e the words of a statute can arise no question .of construction. themselves. [755D] are clear and unambiguous, there Such words ordinarily speak fOr (iii) A court should give effect to plain words. not because .there is . any charm or magic iO the plainness of such words 'but because plain Words may be expected to convey plainly the intention of the Legislature. [755E] 2. Section 13 A-1 of the Act was introduced in 1915, relaxing the rigour of section 13 in favour of a landlord who is or w<iS a member of the arn1ed forces. The provision provides ·that if the landlord produces a certificate in the manner prescribed it shall be taken as established, without further proof that he was then a member of ihc armed forces of the Union or that he was such ·member and now a.retired ex-serviceman and that he did not possess any other suitable resider:ce -in the local area where he or any member of his family can reside. All that he had to fllfther prove was that he bOna fide required the premises for occupation by himsclf_or any m~rnber of his family. The certificate is conclusive proof that.he did not possess any s_uilable residence in thC local area, and not that be bo11a fide required the premises for occupation by himself or any member 'of his_ family. As soon as be established that he bona fide required the premises foi occupation he was entitled to recover possession, aod did not have to further prove that greater hardship could be caused to him than to the tenant if a decree for possession is not granted._[7560-G] 3 .. It is impossible on the plain language of section 13 A"
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.