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

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Court was whether major relations of a retired military personnel, who has ceased to be a member of the armed forces, are entitled to the benefit of the special procedure prescribed under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Act), for recovery of possession of premises under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. Specifically, the issue arose whether the appellants, being major daughters of a retired Colonel, could invoke the special eviction procedure designed for bona fide requirement of premises by military personnel or their dependents.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Entitlement of major relations of retired military personnel to the special eviction procedure under Section 29B of the Act.

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The relevant provisions were Section 13(1)(ff) and Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Section 13(1)(ff) allows eviction where the landlord requires the premises for his own occupation or for occupation by persons for whose benefit the premises are held, subject to certain conditions. Section 29B prescribes a special procedure for eviction applications by landlords who are government employees, members of the armed forces who have retired or will retire within a year, or their dependents and relations as defined. The 1979 Amendment to Section 29B expanded the categories of landlords eligible for the special procedure to include parents, wives, relations (other than minor children or widows) who are dependents and ordinarily reside with the member, and minor children or widows of members who die while in service or within five years of retirement.

The Court also referred to the authoritative interpretation of the word "such" in legislative drafting, citing a Constitution Bench decision which explained that the word "such" indicates that the noun it qualifies must be understood in the same sense as previously mentioned.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court undertook a detailed textual analysis of Section 29B, especially focusing on the categories of landlords entitled to the special procedure. It emphasized that the 1979 Amendment deliberately expanded the scope but with clear qualifying language. The Court parsed the language to distinguish between different categories:

• Category (ii): Landlords who are members of the armed forces who have retired or will retire within one year.
• Category (iii): Parents or wives of such members.
• Category (iv): Relations (other than minor children or widows) who are dependents and reside with the member, and minor children or widows of members who die while in service or within five years of retirement.

The Court noted that the phrase "who dies while in service or within five years of retirement" qualifies the member in category (iv)(b), indicating that the special procedure applies to relations only in the event of death of the member during service or shortly after retirement.

The Court rejected the High Court's construction that the appellants, as major daughters of a retired military officer, were entitled to the special procedure. Instead, it held that the special procedure under Section 29B cannot be invoked by a relation of a retired member who is alive, as the legislative language clearly limits the benefit to relations in the event of death of the member while in service or within five years thereafter.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellants were major daughters of a retired Colonel who had ceased to be a member of the armed forces at the time of institution of eviction proceedings. The father had retired on 31st March 1995, and the eviction petition was filed on 14th September 1995. The Court found that the appellants did not fall within the category of landlords entitled to the special procedure under Section 29B as they were relations of a retired member who was alive and not deceased within the specified period.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the statutory language and legislative intent, the Court concluded that the appellants could not avail themselves of the special procedure under Section 29B since their entitlement depends on the status of the member (alive or deceased) and the timing of the eviction petition relative to retirement and death. The special procedure was designed to provide relief primarily to serving members, retiring members within a short period, and their immediate dependents or relations in the event of death. The appellants, being major daughters of a retired member who was alive, did not meet these criteria.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued that their real need for the premises arose after their father's retirement and that the provision should be interpreted purposively to advance this need. The Court disagreed, holding that where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it must be given effect as it stands, and legislative intent cannot be used to expand the scope beyond the words used. The Court also declined to examine the alternative submission that the father was not a member of military services, as the primary issue was dispositive.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the special procedure under Section 29B does not extend to major relations of a retired member who is alive. The eviction petition under Section 13(1)(ff) read with Section 29B was not maintainable in the present case. However, the appellants were not barred from seeking eviction by other legal means or forums available under the law.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"We are clearly of the opinion that a relation (dependent and jointly residing), a minor child and the widow - are such three classes as the Legislature intended to treat on a par."

"We cannot... expand the meaning of an expression employed by the Legislature and therein include such category of persons as the legislature has not chosen to do."

"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."

"The dismissal of this petition... would not debar the appellants from seeking the remedy of recovery of possession from the tenant-respondent by having recourse to such other provision of law and such other Forum, as may be available to them."

Core principles established include that statutory provisions conferring special procedural rights must be strictly construed according to their explicit language, particularly where legislative intent is clear. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the precise language and categories enumerated in the statute, especially in the context of protective tenancy laws involving government or military personnel and their dependents.

Final determination: The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellants, as major daughters of a retired but living military officer, were not entitled to invoke the special eviction procedure under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.