Holding

Section 13A‑1, by its plain and unambiguous language, allows a serving or retired member of the armed forces to recover possession of premises on bona‑fide personal requirement, even if the tenancy commenced before the landlord acquired the property.

Summary

Shivram, a retired member of the armed forces, inherited a flat in 1964 that was already let to a tenant. He filed an eviction suit in 1971 on grounds of default and personal requirement. While the suit was pending, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was amended in 1975 to include Section 13A‑1, which allows a serving or retired armed‑forces member to recover possession of premises if he bona‑fide requires them, upon production of a certificate. Shivram filed a fresh suit under this provision, produced the required certificate, and the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority decreed eviction. The tenant challenged the decree in the High Court, which set it aside on the ground that Section 13A‑1 could not be invoked when the tenancy pre‑existed the landlord’s acquisition of the property. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of Section 13A‑1 permits a landlord who is a serving or retired armed‑forces member to evict a tenant on bona‑fide personal requirement, irrespective of when the tenancy began, and restored the lower tribunals' decree. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 13A‑1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 enables a retired member of the armed forces who becomes landlord by inheritance to evict a tenant on the ground of bona‑fide personal requirement.
Whether the provision should be read down to apply only when the landlord was already in possession of the premises while in service.

Legislation cited

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947s. 13(2), s. 13A-1, s. 13(g)

Subjects

statutory interpretationplain meaning rulewelfare legislationlandlord‑tenantarmed forcesbona fide personal requirementevictionSection 13A-1Bombay Rent Act

Judgment

7SO

SHIVRAM ANAND SHIROOR

v.

RADHABAI SHANTRAM KOWSHIK AND
ANOTHER
B
January 31, 1984

(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND
R. B. MISRA, JJ.]

c
A-1
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.
'
}
D 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 :
E
'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
F 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.

G 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
H subordinate tribunals that the appellant bona fide required the premises for
SHIVRAM V, R.S. X:OWSHiK 751
A
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, B
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
c
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 are clear and unambiguous, there D
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 iO the plainness of such words 'but because plain Words
may be expected to convey plainly the intention of the Legislature. [755E]
E
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 F
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 G
the tenant if a decree for possession is not granted._[7560-G]

3. . It is impossible on the plain language of section 13 A"'l of the
Act to read down the provision as enabling a member or a- retired member
of the armed forces to recover possession of tile premises only if he bad
himself originally let out the premises when he was the member. of the
armed forces and not if tho tenancy had commenced before he became the
landlord of the premises either by inheritence, partition, or any. other H
752 SUPREMB COURT RllPORTS (1984] 2 s.c.R.

A 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 Object's 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]
B
Mrs. Winifred Ro<s and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and Ors., [1983] (2)
S.C. SCALE 900 referred to,

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 2906 of
1981.

C Appeal hy Special leave from Judgment and Order dated the
6th July, 1981 of the Bamby High Court m Writ Petition No. 227
of 1981.

Raju Ramachandran and Mrs. Sadhana Ramachandran for the
Appellant.
D
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
E
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. 19~2 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 Tardco Bombay having
F inherited the same from his brother. The respondent was already
the tenant of the premises when the appcllent inherited it as the
owner. Soon after his retirement, the appellant filed a suit for
ejectment against the respondent on the grouuds of default in
payment of rent, bona fide personal requirement and unlawful snblct-
ting. This was iu 1971. While the suit was still pending, the
G Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Centro! Act, 1947
was amended in 1975 by the introduction of sec. 13 A-L 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 hona 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
H Commanding Officer. The certificate was to specify that the indivi·
SBIVRAM v. R.S. KOWSHIK (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 753

dual concerned was presently a member of the armed forecs of A
the Union or that he was such a member and was now a retired
cx-servicomm and th•t he did not possess any other suitable residence
in the local area wherever he or any member of bis family could
reside. It was further provided that the certificate was to be conclu-
sive evidence of the facts stated therein An important distincti~n
B
between the general provision contained in Section 13 (I) (g) and
the special provision Section 13 A-1 is that under the special provi-
sion 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 Sec.ion J 3 (!) fg) if the court is satisfied that
having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship c
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 Secrion 13 A-: of ihe 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 D
{
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 J.earned single Judge of the High Court, while .
not interferring 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
E
ground that Section 13 A-I 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 land-
lord has .appealed under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
F
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 sueh member and is duly retired
(which term shall include premature retirement) shal! be
entitled to recover possession. of any premises, on the G
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); und
the Court shall pass a decree for eviction on such ground IJ
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 2 s.c.n

if the landlord, at the hearing of the suit, produces a certi-
ficate 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 su~h member and is now a
B retired ex-service1nan;

(ii) he does not possess any other suitable re.sidence
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
c dies while in service or such member is duly
retired as stated above and dies wtihin five years
of his retirement, his widow, who is or becomes
a landlord of any premi.ses, shall be entitled to
recover possession of such premises, on the . ground
that the premises are bona fide required by her for
D
occupation by herself of any member of
}
he1• faimily (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, •
E 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
F forces as aforesaid;

(ii) .she does not possess any other suitable
residence in the local area where she or the mem-
bers of her family can reside.
E~planation !-For the purpose of clause (al of this
section, the expression "the Head of this Service",
G 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-ill-Chief, Western Naval
Command, and in the case of officers retired from
the Indian Air Force includes the Station
ll Commander.
'
SHIVRAM v. R.S. KOWSHIK (Chinnappa Reddy,!.) 755

·Explanation 2-For the purposes of this· section, A
any certificate granted thereunder shall be conclu-
sive evidence of the facts stated therein".
'f
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 un- B
reasonable eviction by Landlords and it should, therefore he inter-
preted 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 nof mean c
that the intention of. the legislature, expressed with sufficient
vocabular clarity or gathered by ,reference to permissible sources,
may be by-passed to accommodate individual versions of what
may appear reasonable. The ta1k of an interpreter is to asce_rtain
intention. It is often said, where the words of a statute are clear
D
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 E
intention ofthe legislature". A court should giveeffect 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 !3 A-1 against the background and in
the light of the object and the remaining provisions of the Act, what F
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 land-
lord. So, the Act stipulates the grounds on which a Landlord may
seek eviction of a tenai1t. Section 13' ( 1) (g) in particular enables a .
lan.dlord to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satis-
fied 'that the premises are reasonably and bona-fide required by the
landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose bene- G
fit 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 bo plSscd on the ground
specified in clause (g) of sub·section (I) if the Court is satis. H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984.) 2 s.c.R·

A fled that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case
including the question whether other reasonable accommoda-
tion 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
B
the landlord by passing the decree fo 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
c 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
D armed forces. It is now provided that if he produces a certificate
in the manner preseribed 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.
E 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 cerificate 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 himself or any member of his family.
1here may be cases where he does not possess any other suitable
F 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 docs not have to further prove that greater hardship
would be caused to him than to the tenant if a decree for possesion
G 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. Winifred Ross .h Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca
SHIVRAM v. R.S. KOWSHjK (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 757

and Others (1) where it was observed : A

-· "Having regard to the object and purposes of the Act
and in particular Section 13 A-i it is difficult to hold
that Section 13 A-I can be availed of by an ex-member
of the armed forces to recover from a tenant posses-
sion of a buiiding which he acquires after his retirement. B
Since a liberal interpretation -of Section 13 A· I 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 c
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 ifrawn out litigation D
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
1 retired member of the armed forces to recover possession of the
E
premises only if he had himself oiginally let out the premises 'when
he was a member of the arined forces and not if the tenancy had
commenced before he became the landlord of the premises either by
inheritance, partition, or any _oher mode of transfer of property. To
place such an interpretation would· be to virtually rewrite the provi·
sion. The language of Section 13 A-I which is sufficiently plain F
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 G
ofte_n posted at non-family stations. Some of these personel,
who possess their own premises either in their homo 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

(I) (1983] 2 S. C. sCALB 900 H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 2 R.C.R.

A authorities that on their retirement or transfer to non-
family stations the serving and ex-service personnel find it
extremely difficult to regain possession of their premises
which they badly require for personal occupation perma-
nently or for housing their families for the duration of
their posting at non-family stations. In case of death of a
n service ·personnel while in service or death of ex-service
personnel shortly after the retirement, the widoll' also finds
it extremely difficult to regain pornession of their premises "' ..
for her personal occupation or occupation of her family.

The case of Defence Services Personnel due to their
c special obligations and disabilities do need d!fferent treat-
ment 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 ..
D
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 pre-
E mises, when bona fide reqnired for occupation by them or
members of their families and to provide that the Court
shall be bound to pass a decrrce 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 bis Service or His Commanding Officer or the
F Area or Sub-Area Commander within whose Jurisdiction
the premises are·situated.

The Bill is 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
G
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, 1 he words
'regain possession' in the context, are merely meant to convey
H 'obtain possession'. To our mind, the intention of the le~islature is
SHIVRAM v. R.s. KOWSH(K (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 759

expressed with sufficient clarity by the la_nguage of Section 13 A-1 A
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 B
filing within four weeks from today an undertaking which shall be in

·-..
'
the form usually adopted in the Court.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.