Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
SHIVRAM ANAND SHIROOR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RADHABAI SHANTRAM KOWSHIK AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT31/01/1984
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION:
1984 AIR 786 1984 SCR (2) 750
1984 SCC (1) 588 1984 SCALE (1)130
ACT:
Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Acts 1947.
Section 13 A-I
Member of Armed Forces-Flat inherited while in service-
On retirement from service-Whether could eject tenant from
flat on ground of bona fide requirement.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Words of statute-clear and unambiguous-No question of
construction arises-Court to give effect to plain words.
Words and Phrases:
’regain possession’-Meaning of.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was a member of the armed forces of the
Union from August, 1942 until August 17, 1970 when he
retired from the Army. In 1964, he inherited a flat from his
brother. The respondent was already the tenant of the flat.
Soon after retirement, he filed a suit against the
respondent for ejectment on the grounds of default, sub
letting and bona fide personal requirement. While the suit
was pending, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents
Control Act, 1947 was amended in 1975 by the introduction of
section 13 A-1. The appellant, therefore filed a fresh suit
for eviction under section 13 A-1, and produced the required
certificate.
The Rent Controller and 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
751
his own occupation, set aside the decree for eviction on the
ground that section 13 A- 1 did not enable a member or a
retired member of the armed forces to seek the remedy
provided by section 13 A-1, if the premises were already in
the occupation of the tenant when he became the landlord
while being a member of the armed forces.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
^
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
HELD: 1. (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
Landlords. 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 grounds. But this does not mean
that the intention of the legislature, expressed with
sufficient vocabulary clarity or gathered by reference to
permissible sources, may be by-passed to accommodate
individual versions of what may appear reasonable. [755B-D]
(ii) Where the words of a statute are clear and
unambiguous, there can arise no question of construction.
Such words ordinarily speak for themselves. [755D]
(iii) A court should give effect to plain words, not
because there is any charm or magic in 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 1975,
relaxing the rigour of section 13 in favour of a landlord
who is or was a member of the armed 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 the armed forces
of the Union or that be was such member and now a retired
ex-serviceman and that he did not possess any other suitable
residence in the local area where he or any member of his
family can reside. All that he had to further prove was that
he bona fide required the premises for occupation by himself
or any member of his family. The certificate is conclusive
proof that he did not possess any suitable residence in the
local area, and not that he bona fide required the premises
for occupation by himself or any member of his family. As
soon as he established that he bona fide required the
premises for occupation he was entitled to recover
possession, and 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. [756D-G]
3. It is impossible on the plain language of section 13
A-1 of the Act to read down the provision as enabling a
member or a retired member of the armed forces to recover
possession of the premises only if he had himself originally
let out the premises when he was the member of the armed
forces and not if the tenancy had commenced before he became
the landlord of the premises either by inheritance,
partition, or any other
752
mode of transfer of property. To place such an
interpretation would be to virtually rewrite the provision.
[757E-F]
4. The words ’regain possession’ in the Statement of
objects and Reasons, merely mean obtain possession, and do
not indicate that the member of the Armed Forces must have
let the tenant into possession. [758G]
Mrs Winifred Ross and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and
Ors., [1983] (2) S.C SCALE 900 referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2906 of
1981.
Appeal by Special leave from Judgment and order dated
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
the 6th July, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
No. 227 of 1981.
Raju Ramachandran and Mrs Sadhana Ramachandran for the
Appellant.
S.B. Bhasme, K. Rajendra Choudhary and K. Sivraj
Choudhary for Respondent.
M N Shroff for Respondent No. 2 (NOT PRESENT)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The appellant in this appeal by
special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution was a
member of the Armed Forces of the Union from August, 1942
until August 17, 1970 when he retired from the Army, In
1964, he became the owner of a flat in a co-operative
society in Tardeo Bombay having inherited the same from his
brother. The respondent was already the tenant of the
premises when the appellant inherited it as the owner. Soon
after his retirement, the appellant filed a suit for
ejectment against the respondent on the grounds of default
in payment of rent, bona fide personal requirement and
unlawful submitting. This was in 1971. While the suit was
still pending, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Central Act, 1947 was amended in 1975 by the
introduction of sec. 13 A-1. This was a special provision
aimed at enabling a member of the Armed Forces of the Union
or a retired members of the said Armed Forces to recover
possession of premises bona fide required by him for his
occupation or the occupation of members of his family on the
production of a certificate from the Head of the Service or
the Commanding Officer. The certificate was to specify that
the indivi-
753
dual concerned was presently a member of the armed forces of
the Union or that he was such a member and was now a retired
ex-serviceman and that he did not possess any other suitable
residence in the local area wherever he or any member of his
family could reside. It was further provided that the
certificate was to be conclusive evidence of the facts
stated therein An important distinction between the general
provision contained in Section 13 (1) (g) and the special
provision Section 13 A-1 is that under the special provision
a tenant is disabled from taking advantage of Section 13 (2)
which provides that no decree for eviction shall be passed
on the ground specified in Section 13 (I) (g) if the court
is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of
the case, greater hardship would be caused by passing the
decree than by refusing to pass it. The appellant,
therefore, preferred to file a fresh suit for eviction of
the respondent under Section 13 A-1 of the Bombay Rent Act
rather than pursue the suit filed in 1971. He filed a fresh
suit under the new provision. He produced the certificate
required to be produced under Section 13 A-1. The Rent
Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently found
that the Appellant bona fide required the flat for his own
occupation and decreed the suit. The tenant moved the High
Court of Bombay under Art. 227 of the Constitution A learned
single Judge of the High Court, while not interfering with
the concurrent finding of the subordinate tribunals that the
landlord bona fide require the premises for his own
occupation, nevertheless set aside the decree for eviction
on the ground that Section 13 A-1 did not enable a member or
a retired member of the armed forces to seek the remedy
provided by Section 13 A-1 of the Bombay Rent Act if the
premises were already in the occupation of the tenant when
he became the landlord has appealed under Art. 136 of the
Constitution.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
Section 13 A-1 of the Bombay Rent Act is as follows:
"13 A-1 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 parents or
other relation ordinarily residing with him and
dependent on him); and the Court shall pass a decree
for eviction on such ground
754
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 effect 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
member 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 of
any member of her family (which term shall include her
or her husband’s 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
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 purpose of clause (a) of this
section, the expression "the Head of this
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.
755
Explanation 2-For the purposes of this section, any
certificate granted thereunder shall be conclusive
evidence of the facts stated therein".
It is true, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge,
the Bombay Rent Act is a welfare legislation designed among
other matters, to protect tenants from harassment and
unreasonable eviction by Landlords and it should, therefore
he interpreted in a broad and liberal spirit so as to
further and not to constrain the object of the Act. We also
agree that 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 grounds. But this does not mean that
the intention of the legislature, expressed with sufficient
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
vocabular clarity or gathered by reference to permissible
sources, may be by-passed to accommodate individual versions
of what may appear reasonable. The task of an interpreter is
to ascertain intention. It is often said, where the words of
a statute are clear and unambiguous, there can arise no
question of construction. Such words ordinarily speak for
themselves. Since the words must have spoken as clearly to
legislators as to judges, it may be safely presumed that the
legislature intended what the words plainly say. This is the
true basis of the so called golden rule of Construction that
"Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must
give effect to it,-for in that case the words of the Statute
speak the intention of the legislature". A court should give
effect to plain words not because there is any charm or
magic in the plainness of such, words but because plain
words may be expected to convey plainly the intention of the
legislature. Bearing these general principles in mind, if we
look at Section 13 A-1 against the background and in the
light of the object and the remaining provisions of the Act,
what do we find? As we said earlier one of the principal
objects of the Act is to protect the tenant against
unreasonable eviction by a landlord. So, the Act stipulates
the grounds on which a Landlord may seek eviction of a
tenant. Section 13 (I) (g) in particular enables a landlord
to recover possession of any premises if the Court is
satisfied ’that the premises are reasonably and bona-fide
required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any
person for whose benefit the premises are held. So
solicitous indeed is the legislature about protecting the
tenant that Section 13 (2) contains a further stipulation
that.
"No decree for eviction shall be passed on the
ground specified in clause (g) of sub-section (I) if
the Court is satis-
756
fied that, having regard to all the circumstances of
the case including the question whether other
reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord
or the tenant greater hardship would be caused by
passing the decree than by refusing to pass it", and
"Where the Court is satisfied that no hardship would be
caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by
passing the decree in respect of a part of the
premises, the Court shall pass the decree in respect of
such part only".
Notwithstanding the expressed legislative bias in
favour of the tenant, the legislature itself made a serious
departure from the general rule so as to lean in favour of
landlords who are or were members of the armed services, and
who because of the exigencies of their service were not able
to occupy their own premises during the course of their
service. Section 13 A-1 was enacted, relaxing the rigour of
Section 13 in favour of a landlord who is or was a member of
the armed forces. It is now provided that if he produces a
certificate in the manner prescribed it shall be taken as
established, without further proof that he is presently a
member of the armed forces of the Union or that he was such
member and is now a retired ex-serviceman and that he does
not possess any other suitable residence in the local area
where he or any member of his family can reside. All that he
had to further prove is that he bona fide required the
premises for occupation by himself or any member of his
family. The certificate is conclusive proof that he did not
possess any suitable residence in the local area but not
that he bona fide requires the same for occupation by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
himself or any member of his family. There may be cases
where he does not possess any other suitable residence in
the local area and yet he does not bona fide require the
premises for occupation by himself or any member of his
family, being comfortably settled elsewhere with a no need
or pressure to move. But so soon as he establishes that he
bona fide requires the premises for occupation for his
family, he is entitled to recover possession and does not
have to further prove that greater hardship would be caused
to him than to the tenant if a decree for possession is not
granted. It is of course, implicit that the person producing
the certificate is the landlord. It is further implicit that
the person mentioned in the certificate as presently or
previously a member of the armed forces was at a
simultaneous point of time both landlord and member of the
armed forces. This has been laid down recently by this Court
in Mrs. Wintfred Ross & Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca
757
and others (1) where it was observed:
"Having regard to the object and purposes of the
Act and in particular Section 13 A-1 it is difficult to
hold that Section 13 A-1 can be availed of by an ex-
member of the armed forces to recover from a tenant
possession of a building which he acquires after his
retirement. Since a liberal interpretation of Section
13 A-1 of the Act is likely to expose it to a
successful challenge on the basis of Art. 14 of the
Constitution, it has to be read down as conferring
benefit only on those members of the armed forces who
were landlords of the 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 the criticism that it is discriminatory and also
would advance the object of enacting it, namely, that
members of the armed forces should not while they are
in service feel worried about the difficulties of a
long drawn out litigation when they wish to get back
the premises which they have leased out during their
service".
But we find it impossible on the plain language of
Section 13 A-1 to further read down the provision as
enabling a member or a retired member of the armed forces to
recover possession of the premises only if he had himself
originally let out the premises when he was a member of the
armed forces and not if the tenancy had commenced before he
became the landlord of the premises either by inheritance,
partition, or any other made of transfer of property. To
place such an interpretation would be to virtually rewrite
the provision. The language of Section 13 A-1 which is
sufficiently plain does not warrant or invite such an
interpretation. Nor is there anything elsewhere in the Act
which compels such a construction. The statement of object
and reasons was read to us. It says,
"Defence Services Personnel are liable to
transfers and to be stationed in different parts of the
country. They are often posted at non-family stations.
Some of these personnel, who possess their own premises
either in their home towns or elsewhere have
necessarily to hire them out to other persons
temporarily while they are away on duty. It has been
represented to the State Government by the military
758
authorities that on their retirement or transfer to
non-family stations the serving and ex-service
personnel find it extremely difficult to regain
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
possession of their premises which they badly require
for personal occupation permanently or for housing
their families for the duration of their posting at
non-family stations. In case of death of a service
personnel while in service or death of ex-service
personnel shortly after the retirement, the widow also
finds it extremely difficult to regain possession of
their premises for her personal occupation or
occupation of her family.
The case of Defence Services Personnel due to
their special obligations and disabilities do need
different treatment from that accorded to other
landlords and in fact special provisions have been made
for them in some of the States, whereby processes for
each personnel to regain possession of their premises
have been simplified and made more effective.
It is considered necessary to make a special
provision in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act, 1947 to enable a member or retired
member of the armed forces of the Union or a widow of
such a member who dies while in service, or who dies
within five years of his retirement, to regain
possession of their premises, when bona fide required
for occupation by them or members of their families and
to provide that the Court shall be bound to pass a
decree for eviction on such ground if such member or
widow, as landlord, produces, at the hearing of the
suit, the necessary certificate signed by the Head of
his Service or His Commanding officer or the Area or
Sub-Area Commander within whose Jurisdiction the
premises are situated.
The Bill intended to achieve these objects"
It was said that the use of the words ’regain
possession’ in the statement of objects and Reasons
indicated that the member of the armed forces must have
himself given possession, that is, he must have himself let
the tenant into possession. We cannot read so much into the
Statement of object and Reasons and into the Statute, via
the Statement of objects and Reasons. The words ’regain
possession’ in the context, are merely meant to convey
’obtain possession’. To our mind, the intention of the
legislature is
759
expressed with sufficient clarity by the language of Section
13 A-1 and there is nothing either in the Statute or in the
Statute or in the Statement of objects and Reasons to
suggest that the intention of the legislature was other than
what we have said. We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside
the judgment of the High Court and restore those of the Rent
Controller and the appellate authority. The parties will
bear their respective costs. The respondents are given time
till 30th September, 1984 to vacate the premises subject to
their filing within four weeks from today an undertaking
which shall be in the form usually adopted in the Court.
N.V.K. Appeal allowed.
760