2002 (4) TMI 896 - SC - Indian Laws

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 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956? Held that - We cannot 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. If only the Legislature would have intended that the benefit of Section 29B should be available to a landlord who is a relation of a member of such service even after his retirement and living, in that case, in the part of the provision which is under consideration the Legislature would have used some such words as a member or retired member or simply such member instead of a member , in which case there could have been some merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. But, the Legislature has not chosen to do so. As 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, it is not necessary to examine the alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that Colonel P.G. Sarcar, the father of the appellants was a member of Border Roads Organisation set up by and under the control of Ministry of Transport of the Government of India and hence, was not a member of military services.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of major relations of retired military personnel to benefit from special eviction procedure under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
2. Interpretation of specific provisions within Section 29B and Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act.
3. Legislative intent behind the 1979 amendment to Section 29B.
4. Applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding legislative classification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Major Relations of Retired Military Personnel:
The core issue was whether major relations of a retired military personnel, who has ceased to be in service, are entitled to the benefit of the special procedure prescribed by Section 29B for eviction under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. The Supreme Court concluded that a relation (dependent and jointly residing) of a member of the naval, military, or air force of the Union of India can invoke Section 29B only if the member dies while in service or within five years of retirement. Therefore, the appellants, being major daughters of a retired military personnel, did not qualify for this special procedure.

2. Interpretation of Section 29B and Section 13(1)(ff):
Section 13(1)(ff) allows eviction if the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held. Section 29B provides a special procedure for eviction applications by certain categories of landlords, including retired members of the military and their dependents. The Court emphasized that the language of Section 29B is plain and explicit, and does not admit of any doubtful interpretation. The term "such member" was interpreted to refer specifically to a member who dies while in service or within five years of retirement, thereby excluding retired members who are still alive.

3. Legislative Intent Behind the 1979 Amendment:
The 1979 amendment to Section 29B aimed to extend relief to the parents, wives, and dependent relations of military personnel who die while in service or within five years of retirement. The Court noted that the amendment was intended to cover specific categories of landlords, and the language used was deliberate to include only those relations who would face hardship due to the death of the military member. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the provision should be interpreted to include relations of retired members who are still alive, as this would go beyond the clear legislative intent.

4. Applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The Court reiterated that legislative classification need not be mathematically precise and enjoys considerable latitude. The classification under Section 29B was found to withstand the test of Article 14, as it was based on reasonable grounds and aimed to address specific hardships faced by certain categories of landlords. The Court held that the provision's classification was valid and did not violate the equality principle under Article 14.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the appellants' petition under Section 13(1)(ff) read with Section 29B was not maintainable, though for different reasons. The Court clarified that the special procedure under Section 29B is not available to relations of retired military personnel unless the member dies while in service or within five years of retirement. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs, but the appellants were not barred from seeking other legal remedies for eviction.