Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1983 DIGILAW 203 (CAL)

Arun Kumar Sen v. Satindra Nath Goswami

1983-07-20

N.G.CHAUDHURI

body1983
JUDGMENT 1. THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated November 26, 1982 passed by Rent Controller, Calcutta, in R. C. Case No. 6/82 E. V. C. by the said order the application of the landlords under section 29b of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1957 has been dismissed by the Rent Controller on a finding that the landlords were not entitled to the benefit of the said section. 2. TWO landlords, who are brothers, jointly filed the application on the allegation that the disputed premises pursuant to a partition amongst co-sharers had been allotted to them exclusively and they had become full owners of the suit premises. They further alleged that applicant No. 1 Arun kumar Sen was an Entomologist in the medical Department of Arunachal Pradesh and was residing in a Government residential quarters at Mia, District Tirap, Arunachal pradesh, which he vacated on Superannuation with effect from 31.12.1981 according to the Government Rules. The proceedings were started on 27.5.1982. With regard to the applicant No. 2 Prosanta Kumar Sen it was alleged that he was an employee under the Directorate of Agriculture, government of West Bengal, and was residing in a rented house at Subhas Gram, 24-Parganas. He alleged that he was posted at Diamond Harbour and the Government had refused to provide him with accommodation in Government quarters as he was in possession of a house in Calcutta. On the aforesaid allegations the two landlords wanted to avail themselves of the provisions of section 29b of the Act and started the proceedings before the Rent controller. The sum and substance of the reasons given by the Rent Controller for dismissing the application is that applicant no. 1 having retired from Government service was not entitled to the benefit if the aforesaid section 29b. With regard to applicant No. 2 the learned Rent Controller held that he, not having been provided with government quarters at any time, was not entitled to the benefit of section 29b. 3. RELYING on the decisions in the cases of nihal Chandvs. Kalyan Chand Jain, reported in AIR 1978 SC 259 , Swaran Singh and another, vs. Kasturi Lai, reported in AIR 1977 SC 265 , and B. N. Muttoo and another vs. Dr. T. K. Nandi, reported in AIR 1979 sc 460 , Mr. 3. RELYING on the decisions in the cases of nihal Chandvs. Kalyan Chand Jain, reported in AIR 1978 SC 259 , Swaran Singh and another, vs. Kasturi Lai, reported in AIR 1977 SC 265 , and B. N. Muttoo and another vs. Dr. T. K. Nandi, reported in AIR 1979 sc 460 , Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate for the petitioners attempts to argue that even a retired Government servant is entitled to avail himself of the benefit of section 29b. In all the three decisions relied on by Mr. Mitra the provisions of section 14a of Delhi rent Control Act 1958 were considered. Provisions of section 14a of the said Act are substantially similar with the provisions of Section 29b of the West Bengal Act. But on a careful comparison of the two sections it would appear that the two provisions are not exactly similar. Provisions of section 14a of the Delhi Act are as follows:- "14a Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to certain persons. (1) Where a landlord who, being a person in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority is required, by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by that Government or authority, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he owns, in the Union territory of Delhi, a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order, to such lanalord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately possession of any premises let out by him And the provisions of section 29b (1) of the. " West Bengal Act are as follows : "S. 29b. Special Procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. " West Bengal Act are as follows : "S. 29b. Special Procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bonafide 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. " 4. IT is noticed that in the West Bengal act in the opening portion of the sub-section emphasis is laid on the landlord being a Government employee. The implication of this obviously is that at the time of making the application before the Rent controller the applicant must be a Government servant. In the present case, as have already pointed out, applicant No. 1 was not a Government employee. He had retired from Government service nearly five months back. The provisions of Delhi Act do not require the applicant to become a government servant on the date of application. In the present case, as have already pointed out, applicant No. 1 was not a Government employee. He had retired from Government service nearly five months back. The provisions of Delhi Act do not require the applicant to become a government servant on the date of application. The provisions of the West Bengal act, like the Delhi Act, require the applicant to be in dire need of accommodation having been required to vacate the premises provided to him by the Government for his accommodation at the place of his service the similarity between the provisions of the Delhi Act and the West Bengal Act ends there. The West Bengal Act further requires the applicant to be a Government servant on the date of his application before the Rent Controller. The Delhi Act does not require this. This difference cannot be overlooked. In the later part of the sub-section, provision has been made for members of naval military and air force of the Union of India. It will be noticed that such members car avail themselves of the provisions of section 29b Of the West Bengal Act even after retirement. Comparing the earlier portions of section 29b sub-section (1) of the Wes bengal Act it is found that a distinction has been made between civil officers of the government and members of naval, militar and air force of the Union of India. Considering this Mr. Mitra with his usual fairness: does not press his arguments further. 5. APPLICANT No. 2, I have already indicated, was never accommodated in any accommodation provided for by the Government to enable him to discharge his duties. He does by no stretch of imagination call for himself for the benefit of section 29b of the act. Considering all these I am convinced that the learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed the applications filed by the land lords under section 29b of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India accordingly fails and is dismissed on contest without costs.