9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the said property in favour of her daughter, Mrs. Winifred Ross, the wife of the plaintiff on November 9, 1976. The property consisted of some out-houses. The defendant has been a tenant in one of those out-houses for a number of years. The said premises consisted of two rooms and a varandah. On June 6, 1977, Mrs. Winifred Ross gifted the portion to which the defendant was residing as a tenant in favour of the plaintiff. The remaining part of the property acquired under the gift deed executed by the mother-in-law of the plaintiff continued in the occupation of Mrs. Winifred Ross. The gift of only the portion of the property in the occupation of the defendant appears to have been made with the object of taking advantage of Section 13A(1) of the Act which was introduced by way of an amendment of the Act in 1975. Section 13A(1) of the Act reads thus: 13A1. 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 oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the file of the Second Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Pune for recovery of possession of the premises Under Section 13A(1) of the Act. He also produced in the course of the suit a certificate issued by the Army Officer concerned as required by that section. The plaintiff claimed that he required the premises for his own use and occupation to stay along with his wife and that he had no premises of his own in Pune for his residence. The defendant contested the suit. But the suit was decreed by the trial court on March 18, 1978 and the defendant was directed to deliver possession of the premises within one month from the date of signing the decree. The defendant filed an appeal against that decree before the District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.228 of 1978. That appeal was dismissed on November 15, 1978. Against the decree passed in the appeal the defendant filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay in Special Civil Application No. 3025 of 1978. During the pendency of the said petition the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The High Court allowed the said petition and dismissed the suit f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 bearing 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 is intended to achieve these objects. 5. The object of Section 13A(1) of the Act is quite a laudable one. It is introduced in order to enable members of the armed forces who have leased out their buildings when they are in service to recover quickly possession of such buildings without the restrictions contained in the other parts of the Act either when they are still in service or on their retirement for their use and occupation or for the use and occupation of the members of their family. Even the widows of such landlords may under Clause (b) of Section 13A(1) can recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il of the benefit of the said section with a private arrangement between them. It is also possible that a person who has retired from the armed forces may after retirement lease out a premises belonging to him in favour of a tenant and then seek his eviction at his will Under Section 13A(1) of the Act. In fact the facts involved in the case of Sushilabai Vasudeo Jaeel and Ors. v. M.S. Dhillon and Ors. [1979] M L J 125 were similar to the above illustration. In that case the plaintiff was a person who had been discharged from the army in the year 1946. Thereafter he was working in the Railways. He had let out a premises belonging to him in 1957. The High Court of Bombay held that he could not avail himself of the benefit of Section 13A(1) of the Act as he had not let out the building while he was in the army. The High Court found that Section 13A(1) of the Act did not govern the case of a person who had retired long back from the armed forces and was gainfully employed elsewhere and while so employed had let out his premises with open eyes. We fully endorse this view. 6. In another case Jyotish Ranjan Chakrabarti v. N.K. Mitra [1983] 1 R.C.J. 223 decided by the Calcutta High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Government's decision dated September 9, 1975, a notice was served on the landlord on September 30, 1975 which was much before his retirement which took place on November 30, 1975 to vacate the premises allotted to him by the Government as he had his own accommodation in Delhi which he had leased out and that if he did not do so he had to pay penal rent for the Government premises. When he filed a suit for eviction Under Section 14A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 he had ceased to be a Government servant by reason of his retirement. The tenant contended that he could not avail himself of the benefit of Section 14A(1) as he had ceased to be a Government servant. This Court negatived the said plea holding that the cause of action arose on September 30, 1975 when he was served with the notice by the Government and on that date he was very much in service even though the Court observed that there was some force in the argument that Section 14A(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was intended for the benefit of persons who were in Government service. 9. The judgment of this Court in B.N. Mutto and Anr. v. T.K. Nandi [1979]2SCR409 which again arose Under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
