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