CHUNNILAL JAISWAL Vs. PRABIR KUMAR SEN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant/petitioner being the judgment-debtor in ejectment suit No. 29 of 2014 has come up before this Court questioning the impugned judgment and decree of eviction dated 8th May, 2015 passed by the learned Judge 5th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, by filing this revisional application.

(2.) Learned Counsel, Mr. Dasgupta appearing for the defendant/petitioner, submitted that the present landlord being plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 was in civil service and retired on 31st August, 2010. He was residing in Government quarter in view of his employment. As per terms and conditions of service, on retirement, the landlord/opposite party was obliged to vacate the Government quarter. However, after about two years of his retirement, the present landlord being plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 purchased the suit premises on 7th March, 2013 and got possession of four rooms. He submitted that after purchasing the property-in-question the plaintiff/opposite party/landlord instituted the suit for eviction of the petitioner/tenant under the special provision i.e. Section 9(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which is applicable to the persons who are in Government service and also working in any of the three wings of defence forces i.e. Army, Navy and Air Force.

(3.) Mr. Dasgupta submitted, as per Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, a person who is in Government service and occupying Government quarter, on superannuation, is entitled to initiate eviction proceedings under the special procedure of Section 9(1) of the Act for eviction of a tenant, but the property for which the suit is instituted ought to have been purchased or belonged to the landlord before his retirement. He submitted that a plain and simple reading of Section 9 itself would show that this would be a special procedure legislated by the State Legislature considering the inconvenience of a Government servant who in spite of having his own residential house, is required to occupy Government quarter and/or to take shelter under a tenanted premises. He submitted this provision was legislated for the purpose of eviction of tenant who was occupying as tenant under the landlord, who is or was a Government employee and acquired the property before his retirement. He submitted provisions under Section 9(1) and 9(2) are of same effect and there was no practical difference. Learned Counsel submitted that this issue was tested before the Hon'ble Apex Court and there are two decisions in this regard: 1) (1) [Mrs. Winifred Ross and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca & Ors., 1984 AIR(SC) 458]. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that the provision conferred a right to recover possession of a premise from a tenant on a retired member of the Armed Forces or a member retiring within a period of less than, one year from the Armed Forces who is a landlord and is in need of the premises at or about the time of retirement by resorting to a summary remedy. He submitted, in similar circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the view of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta wherein this Court interpreted Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 since repealed, holding that the person who did not have ownership of the property at the time of his retirement was not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 29B of the said Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that only those members of armed forces who were landlords of the premises-in question when they were in service even they though may avail of it after their retirement and such a construction would save it from the criticism that it is discriminatory and also would advance the object of enacting it, and the Hon'ble Apex Court also held that Section 13-A1, a liberal interpretation of the section is likely to expose it to a successful challenge on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution. He then submitted that this decision was followed in a subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [Smt. Sulochana v. Rajendra Singh, 2008 AIR(SC) 2611].