JENENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. ROSHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGHT it fit to refer the revision for decision of a larger Bench. On such a reference being made, the revision had been placed before us for consideration.

(2.) AS regards facts of the case, it is admitted that applicant Roshanlal was a Government servant and had retired from service on 31st May, 1985. It is also admitted that he purchased the suit -shop after his retirement by a registered sale -deed dated 27.6.1985 and thereafter initiated present proceedings for obtaining vacant possession of the same before the Rent Controller.

(3.) MRS . Winifred Ross was a case under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and interpreted section 13 -A1 of the said Act, which dealt with a retired member of the Armed Forces. The said provision was inserted into the said Act by way of an amendment in the year 1975. One T.H. Ross was a member of Indian Army and had retired from service in 1967. The house in dispute originally belonged to his mother -in -law, who gifted the same to his wife Mrs. Winifred Ross on 9.1(1976. Later on, the property was gifted to Shri Ross. On 4.6.1977, he terminated the tenancy and filed the suit before the Additional Judge for eviction. The suit was decreed and the judgment was affirmed in appeal. Thereafter, the tenant challenged the legality of the decree by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Shri Ross died and his wife Mrs. Winifred Ross was substituted as his legal representative. The Bombay High Court held that Shri Ross was not entitled to file the suit under section 13 -A1 of the Act, as he had acquired the premises long after he had retired from service of the Army and that his requirement was also not bona fide. It was this judgment, which was under consideration of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while interpreting section 13 -A1 of the said Act in the context of statement of objects and reasons, held that, "Having regard to the object and purposes of the Act and in particular section 13 -A1, it is difficult to hold that section 13 -A1 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." According to the Supreme Court, "acceptance of this argument will expose the very section 13 -A1 of the Act to a successful challenge on the ground of violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution for if that were so, a retired military officer, who has no house of his own can purchase any building in the occupation of a tenant after his retirement, successfully evict a tenant living in it on the ground that he needs it for his use, then sell it for a fancy price and again because he has no house of his own, he can again acquire another building and deal with it in the same way." The Supreme Court further held that, "the High Court found that S. 13 -A1 of the Act did not govern the case of a person who had retired long hack 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." In spite of the aforesaid, the Supreme Court hastened to clarify as under: - a.