OMBALIK DAS Vs. HULISA SHAW
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 03,2002

OMBALIKA DAS Appellant
VERSUS
HULISA SHAW Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. RAVINDRA [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS [LAWS(CHH)-2018-3-108] [REFERRED TO]
BEST WORKERS UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-144] [REFERRED TO]
INDEPENDENT GAS BASED POWER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
D. MAHESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
B SAILESH SAXENA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
B DURVASULU VS. REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
P.HARSHA VARDHAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL SINGH SISODIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-146] [REFERRED TO]
TEACHERS RECRUITMENT BOARD VS. K.BOMMI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-691] [REFERRED TO]
MAKS CASTING P LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
TATA CONSULATANCY SERVICE LTD VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI SOLANKI VS. B.S. SHAM SUNDER [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH SECRETARY, LABOUR D [LAWS(CHH)-2018-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S LVSR FAMRS PVT LTD VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2012-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKER RAJU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
Southern Railways VS. S Palaniappan [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
N. T. AGENCY VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2019-6-118] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED EHTESHAM KAWKAB VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2009-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
BISHAMBER DAYAL GUPTA VS. GENERAL MANAGER DMS [LAWS(DLH)-2002-5-88] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF TELANGANA, REP., BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TELANGANA SECRETARIAT VS. M/S. SRI VENKATESWARA INDUSTRIES, MAHABOBNAGAR, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR B. DAMODAR REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH RAI BAREJA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP NARAIN NEGI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2019-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA PANDEY VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2020-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VS. K MANJUNATH [LAWS(KAR)-2012-6-218] [REFERRED TO]
P.NALLASIVAM VS. GOVERNMENT TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-438] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. VS. LAKAMSANI SAMBA SIVA RAO AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
S S GUPTADR MRS NEETA PARASHAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
NOEL HARPER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
TRANSPORT AND DOCK WORKERS UNION VS. MUMBAI PORT TRUST [LAWS(SC)-2010-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
HEM SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-5-150] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R. C. Lahoti, J. - (1.)Colonel P. G. Sarcar, the father of the two appellants before us, was serving as Superintending Engineer (Civil), Selection Grade, equivalent to Colonel in the General Reserve Engineeering Force, which is said to be an integral part of the Armed Forces. He retired from his post on 31st March, 1995. On 14th September, 1995, his two major daughters, who are the appellants, claiming themselves to be residing with their father and as dependent on him, initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant, the respondent before us, under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act', for short) by having recourse to summary procedure under Chapter VIA of the Act. The tenant sought for leave to defend which was denied on the ground that the application seeking leave to defend was filed beyond the time prescribed therefor. The tenant, laying challenge to the order of the Rent Controller, preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, but the same was dismissed. The Rent Controller then, treating the statement by the landlords made in the application for eviction deemed to have been admitted by the tenant, passed an order for recovery of possession of the premises. The tenant preferred a Civil Revision before the High Court, which has been allowed and in supersession of the order of the trial Court, the eviction petition filed by the landlords has been directed to be dismissed. In the opinion of the High Court, the father of the two appellants, in view of his having retired, was not a member of Military Services on the date of institution of proceedings for eviction and therefore, his major daughters were not entitled to have resource to special procedure for disposal of application for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement prescribed by Section 29-B (Chapter VIA of the Act); they could have had recourse to the forum of Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the landlords have filed this appeal by special leave.
(2.)The short question arising for decision is, 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 Section29-B, for the recovery of possession under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act.
(3.)Section 13(1)(ff) and Section 29-B read as under :
"S. 13. Protection of tenant against eviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds, namely :-

**********

(ff) subject to the provisions of sub-section (3-A), where the presmises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such persons is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation."

"S. 29-B. Special Procedure for disposal of application for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.- No Civil Court shall entertain any application by a landlord being a Government employee, and who being in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by his employer, is required by, or in pursuance of, an order made by such employer, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default to incur certain obligations on the ground that he owns a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child at or near the place where he is posted for the time being,[or by a landlord who has retired, or will retire within a period of less than one year, as a member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India, or by a landlord who is the parent or the wife of such member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India, or by a landlord who is a relation (other than a minor child or the widow) and a dependent of a member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India and ordinarily resides with him or a minor child or the widow of such member who dies while in service or within five years of retirement] for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 but such application shall be dealt with by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section.

(2) Whenever any application is filed before the Controller by a landlord referred to in sub-section (1) for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the Controller shall issue summons, in the form specified in the Second Schedule.

"Provided that-

(a) where the landlord has retired, or will retire within a period of less than one year, as a member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India, a certificate by the Area or Sub-Area Commander within whose jurisdiction the premises are situated or by the Head of his Service or by his Commanding Officer that he has retired, or will retire, as such member and that he requires the premises for his own occupation and for the occupation of his family after retirement, or

(b) where the landlord is the parent or the wife of such member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India as aforesaid, a certificate by the Area or Sub-Area Commander within whose jurisdiction the premises are situated that he or she is the parent or the wife, as the case may be, of such member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India and that he or she requires the premises for his or her own occupation and for the occupation of his or her family after the retirement of such member, or

(c) where the landlord is a relation (other than a minor child or the widow) and a dependent of a member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India and ordinarily resides with him or a minor child or the widow of such member who dies while in service or within five years of retirement, a certificate by the Area or Sub-Area Commander within whose jurisdiction the premises are situated that he or she is the relation and dependent as aforesaid or the minor child or the widow, as the case may be, of the deceased member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India and that he or she requires the premises for his own or her own occupation and for the occupation of his or her family,

shall be produced before the Controller while filing the application, and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.